|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
Oh, sorry, I should have said your second consideration. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:41 AM EDT |
It does matter.
Jurors are laymen. While they are allowed and encouraged to
use their own experiences to guide their deliberations, they
are not allowed to introduce their own evidences or act as
their own expert witnesses. Accordingly, a juror cannot use
his or her own "expertise" as a substitute for jury
instructions and evidences. The foreman isn't a licensed
patent lawyer and thus should not have been making
presumptions about patent law. Even a licensed lawyer would
know better than to go against exactly what is provided in the
instructions. This is along the same line as deliberating
using extraneous facts or law and is grounds for a mistrial.
While the Jury's process and statements aren't something that
can be easily entered into an appeal, they can sometimes be
used effectively to have the trial court overturn the verdict
or order a new trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|