|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 02:19 PM EST |
I'm not sure that is absolutely the case.
They could argue that the Seagate matter contained in the bankruptcy case is
immaterial since it appeared to be a routine collection matter and that the
lawyers involved were not aware of the significance of Seagate. They may argue
they didn't know. They have argued that the Judge and Samsung were satisfied and
it was not their responsibility to do Samsung's job for it and if either Samsung
or the Judge had more questions they should have inquired further. They have
further argued that the alleged bias stemming from Seagate was not for them to
discover but for Samsung to find. They could even argue that it is a hazard
inherent in the jury selection process and that the benefits of jury trial
outweighs the occasional problem.
I'm not saying any of these are good arguments but that there are arguments and
it is not as cut and dried as some seem to think.
I tend to think Apple should have come forward if they knew something (which
they haven't admitted).
That does not excuse Hogan but I can also see how during the questioning that
got somehow lost.
I also tend to think the Judge should have asked a final followup to Hogan's
statement along the lines of "Anything Else?" It seems to me that
should almost always be done in this situation.
It seem that Hogan was given and inordinate amount of attention during voir dire
and that alone should have raised red flags. It would be interesting to know who
was dismissed peremptorily by both parties, that they felt were worse bets that
Hogan.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|