|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
When he not told about all the lawsuits he was or had been involved in.
If he wasn't certain if the cases were relevant he could have asked.
A question: If you ask somebody something, do you expect a straight answer or a
sneaky one?
She might be a bright judge, but why assume she could read minds?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
Here is what the Judge said:
THE COURT: All right. let's go to
Mr. Hogan.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: In 2008, after my company went belly up,
the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me and ultimately,
across the next few months, it was dismissed and in such a fashion that neither
one of us could sue the other one for that matter.
He was
clearly asked to explain why he had raised his hand. He responded selectively,
leaving out any mention of other cases.
In my case I would have had to
answer I have been a party to 3 lawsuits 2 as defendant, 1 as plaintiff. I have
been a fact witness in 2 other cases and and expert is several others although
only one of those went to trial.
Mr. Hogan clearly implied that he had
only been involved in one case.
--- Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore
my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
He was asked the right question. He gave only a
partial answer. The judge will assume a prospective
juror is being truthful. There was nothing left
for her to ask.
She asked if the pool had ever been involved in
any litigation. That covers the ones he didn't
tell her about. And yes, it's the rest of the
jury that is also involved, but that doesn't make
it better. It makes it worse. They *all* promised
to decide the case only on the evidence introduced
at trial, and then they let this guy tell them
his personal evidence and they decided the case
based on his explanation of how the patent system
works, as he told it, and what is and is not
prior art. They were obligated at that point to
say, "Hey, that's not evidence from the trial. We
shouldn't be considering that."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|