|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
I just realized that we can narrow it down to cases
cited on the redacted pages. 13, 14.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
.
PJ, sorry to pick up your note so late but I was distracted by an oyster po boy.
I will look up a few cases.
This topic has screamed for attention since the verdict and the foreman's
running at the mouth, fortunately.
I would have looked something up but figured Samsung would do it.
What a disappointment that it is redacted! However redaction may be a very
hopeful sign that there is something in it unknown from the trial and aftermath,
and protective of other jurors who may have said something, in addition to/or in
reaction to, the loquacious foreman.
I have had some experience in this area. It is very difficult to second guess a
verdict, even by the jurors themselves or juror contradictions. The courts want
some finality of decision and control of process. Unless there is a showing of
misconduct, or not following instructions of the court, one can't get the judge
to look at the situation. Even then it has to be sufficiently
"prejudicial."
So Samsung will have to show that the jury didn't follow instructions
[misconduct], or made misrepresentations during voir dire. It also seems like
everyone deferred to the foreman to hear him tell it. That may not be a
problem.
The cases should show that it is difficult to go "behind" the
deliberation process. But there is enough of a mess here so that the judge can
justify doing what she wants either way. She may prefer to remain a hard ass,
rather than admit she rushed such a complex trial.
~web~
.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|