|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
Agreed. In fact, this Groklaw article is blatantly wrong
about one major
point:
Hogan did not mention the case brought against
him by
Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even
though he was specifically
asked by the judge, as were all
the prospective jurors, to list all cases any
of them was
ever involved in as a witness or a party.
That
claim is also repeated fervently by the author in
Update 1. But according to
the transcript, Hogan was
specifically
asked:
HAVE YOU OR A
FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY
CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT,
EITHER AS A
PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?
No
instruction to "list all cases" is ever specified. In
light of this context,
the debate about "ever" versus the
"10 years" remark is almost made irrelevant,
because Hogan
was actually instructed in the form of "Please identify
yourself
if you fit into this category" rather than "Please
disclose everything you've
ever experienced on this matter."
The transcript shows that Hogan truthfully
identified
himself, volunteered the most recent example in the absence
of
further direct instructions, answered attorneys'
questions to the best of his
ability, and then the court
moved on before he could volunteer more
information.
Regardless of whatever Hogan's true intentions may have
been, the Groklaw article's specific claim
above is false. Whatever Hogan's
reasons are, he did not
violate the judge's instructions by not disclosing
further
information. And since much of the article builds on this
claim
to
evaluate Hogan's character and Samsung's chances on this
motion, I am also left
to
question the rest of the article. And because I have just
first discovered
this site from confused commentators at Ars
Technica, this article's false
claim leaves me with a
negative first impression of the author, as well as the
host site itself.
I hope a retraction will be included in a future
update.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT |
Hi, I wrote the original post here. Sorry for those who were
confused by the paraphrased quote - I thought the key part
of my argument was still clear.
Any how, if you actually read the transcript, there is no
doubt that even the Judge thought this was a yes or no
question, not a list all cases question. Because the
following is what she actually said:
THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A
FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER
BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF,
A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?
LET'S SEE. ON THE FIRST ROW, WHO WOULD
RAISE THEIR HAND TO THAT QUESTION?
I don't know how a question can be answered with the raise
of a hand if it is not a yes/no question. It is ultimately
the Judge's fault for not following up the questioning by
asking Hogan to list any other cases.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|