Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
Would there be any reason for them to discuss the juror names
in this case in order for this to come up prior to his name
being in the media connected to this case? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
"There's a reasonable argument here that Samsung's "my wife just
remembered!" argument is as suspicious as the "aha!" moment in
terms of suspicious fortuitous coincidence."
This is a rather disingenuous argument.
Juror identities are not disclosed. A lawyer is most certainly not expected to
disclose juror details to anyone (they do, but not openly). So any spouse (M/F)
would never hear about the fact that Hogan was in the jury.
And any lawyer can defend themselves by claiming they did the right thing by
*not* discussing jurors with anyone outside the case.
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
I suspect they'll argue Samsung knew this all along (or
should have if they
did their homework). If this
argument works against Samsung, it also
works
against Apple. The perjury in VD threatens a verdict that is
quite
favorable to Apple. If Apple had done this "homework",
they could have gotten
this joker tossed before the case
went to the jury, and then their favorable
verdict would
have been safe, assuming that the favorable verdict did not
depend on the presence of this perjurer in the jury. Most
people looking at
this are convinced that without Hogan
the verdict would have been much less
favorable to Apple,
but Apple can't argue that they should benefit from
injustice. If this guy shouldn't have been on the jury,
Apple have to argue
that his presence either made no
difference or actually helped Samsung. Neither
of those
propositions meshes well with reality. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
We may see an affidavit from one of both of the attorneys describing how they
connected the dots in response to Apple's latest. I think the Judge will want to
know.
---
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: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
The nut of Samsung's argument is that Hogan lied in VD. The prior history
reveals reason for Hogan to have lied in the first place. To place focus on
questioning the possible motive while ignoring the wrongdoing is misdirection.
For whatever reason, Hogan was not honest in VD, that is the standard that can
get the verdict and trial tossed. Anything else that surrounds that simply
strengthens the chance of a new trial. Take it away, and you still have enough
for a new trial.
-- Alma[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
You are forgetting something. The judge isn't
in this instance looking to see who is right,
Apple or Samsung. Of course Apple will argue
it's too late.
She has a much more important
job -- to decide if this jury failed sufficiently
that the verdict is tainted. If so, she will
act. If not, she won't.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:20 PM EDT |
It would appear from the recent Bloomberg piece Apple has been in contact
with the foreman. The speculation on Samsung having foreknowledge of his lack
of Voir Dire forthrightness seems to originate with them.
He added
that he’s surprised Samsung didn’t know about the history it’s now citing given
the relationship the lawyer Samsung refers to in its filing has with another
lawyer at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, the firm representing the
company.
Hogan said yesterday’s filing has him wondering whether Samsung
“let me in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in
their favor.”
The meme only benefits Apple or in the foreman's
instance advances his case in the court of public opinion.
Consider the
possibility Samsung is being forthright. The badgering email from Apple to
Samsung on the matter appears to be intended to allow Apple to formulate a
defense.
Defense from what, the truth? The actual issue here is Samsung's
right to a fair trial by jury under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments.
Apple appears to be trying to intimate Samsung is perpetrating fraud on the
court without doing so in a representation to the court, relying instead on
public media.
A war of nerves and control of the case. After the email
exchange in Exhibit A I don't see Samsung flinching. In
Ms. Estrich's
declaration (Apple v Samsung 2012):
In response to Samsung’s motion
detailing Velvin Hogan’s failure to reveal his litigation with Seagate during
voir dire and its impact on the integrity of the trial and the verdict, Apple
demanded that Samsung disclose the timing of its knowledge regarding those
facts. A true and correct copy of Apple’s email, along with further
correspondence between counsel for the parties that resulted in Apple’s
agreement that any such disclosures would not constitute a waiver of any
privilege, is attached hereto as Exhibit A By way of separate declaration,
Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed
litigation against Seagate until after the verdict. To date, Apple has not
revealed whether it was aware of Mr. Hogan’s litigation against Seagate prior to
the verdict or prior to Samsung’s Motion.
Apple wouldn't likely
succeed following this line. They're stuck trying to prop up Mr. Hogan's public
statements, arguing the law or acceding to Samsung's "allegations that the
judicial process was tainted" (Mr. Bartlett, Exhibit A).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|