|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 02:57 PM EST |
Which means it's relevant.
The verdict would be faulty regardless of any motive ( ie
incompetence), but providing a credible motive makes it a
case of intentionally corrupting justice, which may be more
likely to receive court attention.
Simple incompetence might be relatively common, and not
picked up on to avoid undermining a generally flawed but
acceptably respectable system. In over-complex cases like
this, juror exhaustion, confusion or laziness might be
grudgingly expected (many might want out as soon as
possible), however deliberate actions to block justice might
be viewed more seriously.
Not a lawyer[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 04:11 PM EST |
Jeremy, I agree with you. I think that in the end, the Seagate litigation will
turn out to be a red herring, and Judge Koh (or the 9th Circuit) will overturn
the ruling based on Hogan's self-admitted misconduct.
To wit, his failure to perform his duty that he swore under oath, to follow the
law as provided by the court, discounting his own experience; his acting as an
"expert witness" in the jury room; and his insistence on punitive
damages rather than actual damages.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|