Authored by: hardmath on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 07:00 AM EST |
The voir dire is part of the court's records and thus best
evidence of any material deception at the time by Hogan. He
disclosed a bankruptcy but not the whole story of a dispute
over IP surrounding it. [The bankruptcy records themselves
seem to have been lost/destroyed.]
The jury's deliberations are _not_ part of the court's
records. We know of them only through press accounts, which
is why Samsung is asking for Hogan and other jurors to be
hauled into court to testify about the matters raised by
Hogan's press interviews.
---
Recursion is the opprobrium of the mathists. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 07:47 AM EST |
I've always considered the line of focus & coverage on this
aspect a bit overblown. I can understand why. Everything else
is very straightforward. Either it did or it didn't happen.
Motive is the one item that can be argued and opined on so the
most energy gets expended here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Overblown - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 02:47 PM EST
- Overblown - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 01:25 PM EST
|
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 10:21 AM EST |
I just don't get why a foreman for a jury at any time would
say "here is my thought process, you should all adopt it"? The
fact that he pushed for his view, in my mind, just highlights
a poor foreman immediately - even in absence of all the other
facts of this case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 11:19 AM EST |
The courts frown upon debating what happened during the jury deliberations. They
want the dispute between parties to stop at a point and issue a judgment. This
means there must be a point where the lawyers must stop arguing about whether
the process is correct. The precedents draw an important line when jury start to
deliberate. Then all sorts of things may happen in the closed room where the
jurors are discussing and most of the time the courts will just let it go.
Arguing that the foreman didn't act properly during the deliberations is a tough
sell for this reason. But if he lied during voir dire it becomes a different
kettle of fish and the argument may stick. That is why whether or not he has
lied is such a big thing for lawyers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 02:38 PM EST |
"Weather or not the foreman was acting maliciously..."
So the
foreman's maliciousness was independent of the
current weather at the time. Is
this what you are saying?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|