decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Ten-Year Idea | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Ten-Year Idea
Authored by: bprice on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 01:57 AM EDT
I guess I wasn't clear. My intention, poorly expressed as it may have been, was to point to a possible datum consistent with a pattern of
  • imagining a self-serving misinterpretation of law,
  • failing to question his imaginings, and
  • running with it.

    In particular, the conjecture interprets his voir dire misbehaviour as

  • imagining an embarrassment-preventing misinterpretation of BK or credit-reporting law;
  • failing to ask the judge about the discrepancy between his misinterpretation and her use of the word "ever"; and
  • purposely failing to answer the judge's question.

    This is precisely the pattern he reported himself to have used, on multiple issues, during deliberations:

  • imagining an ego-pleasing misinterpretation of patent law,
  • not asking the court for clarification, nor even rereading the jury instructions;
  • bulldozing the rest of the jury into accepting his view as the Correct™ view.

    You're absolutely correct: it doesn't excuse his misconduct either in voir dire or in deliberations. I offered it as a possibility that a Samsung-type law critter might wish to consider, since a pattern of misconduct, in separate contexts, is (maybe just a little) more incriminating than a single instance of misconduct (or multiple instances in a single context).

    My conjecture was just that, a conjecture. I don't know how or whether support could be found and evidenced, if anyone wished to follow up on it.

    ---
    --Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine.

    [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )