|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|