Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Apple

Unredacted Filings Reveal Claims of Juror Misconduct in Apple vs Samsung Trial 282

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the just-get-judge-judy dept.
zaphod777 writes with this bit from Groklaw on more Jury related intrigue in the Apple-Samsung trial: "Samsung has now filed an unredacted version [PDF] of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it. It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of 'implied bias' and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous 'evidence' of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure." It would seem that everyone's favorite foreman did not disclose that he was sued by Seagate for breach of contract, and that he may have had a chip on his shoulder considering that Samsung is the largest single shareholder of Seagate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unredacted Filings Reveal Claims of Juror Misconduct in Apple vs Samsung Trial

Comments Filter:
  • by Chrisq (894406) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @08:36AM (#41537449)
    I think for lying during selection Hogan should be charged with perjury and contempt of court.
    • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @08:42AM (#41537525)

      I think for lying during selection Hogan should be charged with perjury and contempt of court.

      So does that mean you have proof that he intentionally lied in order to get back at Seagate?
      Was he specifically asked about his relations with Seagate or was it strictly about Samsung?
      Do you have proof that his prior dealings with Seagate affected his performance in the Jury?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Chrisq (894406)

        I think for lying during selection Hogan should be charged with perjury and contempt of court.

        So does that mean you have proof that he intentionally lied in order to get back at Seagate? Was he specifically asked about his relations with Seagate or was it strictly about Samsung? Do you have proof that his prior dealings with Seagate affected his performance in the Jury?

        No, just proof that he lied when asked to disclose previous involvements in lawsuits.

        • by arth1 (260657) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @10:32AM (#41538829) Homepage Journal

          There is no proof of that.
          The transcripts shows that he started by disclosing one newer lawsuit to the judge and was questioned on that, and then the judge moved on, without giving him the opportunity to mention other lawsuits. Sure, he could have yelled out and interrupted the judge, but quite frankly, would you have?
          The bigger mistake here, I believe rests with the judge.

          There is, however, proof of his later lying about the circumstances. He stated (to Bloomberg, I think) that he was only asked about the last ten years, and the transcripts show that he was asked about "ever". But that was not perjury, just more of his hole digging.

          I do believe that Samsung deserves the suit reopened, with a different judge. In my opinion, the judge seemed, how should I put it, less competent, as well as biased. And the jury foreman likely cajoled the others into voting his way by abusing his perceived authority as both a foreman and having patent experience.
          But any way they can get a re-trial, good luck to Samsung here.

          • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @05:58PM (#41543975)

            The transcripts shows that he started by disclosing one newer lawsuit to the judge and was questioned on that, and then the judge moved on, without giving him the opportunity to mention other lawsuits.

            Sorry, but the transcript doesn't show that. The transcript makes no mention of whether the judge paused for 2 seconds, 2 minutes, or 2 hours. You can't conclude that the judge gave no opportunity to mention the lawsuits. In fact, since the judge is actively asking him about lawsuits it is Hogan's responsibility to keep listing them until he's done. Yeah, he can interrupt the judge if she starts moving on. In fact, he should.

      • by The Moof (859402) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @08:51AM (#41537601)
        The thing about lying in court is they don't care about your motivations, only that you're intentionally lying. If they can prove he intentionally lied during jury selection, then their job is done and the juror is in a lot of trouble.
        • by SirGarlon (845873)

          If they can prove he intentionally lied during jury selection, then their job is done and the juror is in a lot of trouble.

          Probably not nearly enough trouble. I don't know what the penalties for perjury and contempt of court are, but I suspect they're less than a billion dollars.

      • Don't need proof. We're charging him with a crime, for which he now has to attend court and defend himself. Evidence of his conduct will be presented to support the charge.
      • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @09:09AM (#41537767) Homepage

        Preponderance of evidence suggests yes.

        He is not likely to forget about that particular legal suit brought against him by Seagate. The question never asked anything about specific but instead asked him to state if he EVER... (Not this "within the last 10 years" crap... something the juror himself pulled out of his ass... quite likely to cloud the situation and to keep himself out of trouble if that's possible.) The preponderance of evidence suggests strongly that his ownership of a patent and that he was directly sued in connection with patent claims by Seagate (largely owned by Samsung) and the fact that he claims expertise and understanding of the patent system combined with the fact that despite that there were jury instructions to the contrary, this jury [steered by its foreman] decided to "send a message" by making the awards punitive in nature.

        So yeah, I'd say that was proof enough. That his interviews reveal him as an idiot does offer a reasonable argument that he is simply an idiot, but that he had an axe to grind and that it would have disqualified him from being on the jury (let alone being its foreman) were it not for his ommision of fact and failure to answer the question which was posed to him.

      • by Xest (935314) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @09:23AM (#41537981)

        All of that is irrelevant, he was asked by the judge to list all previous cases he'd been involved in and he didn't mention this specific one. That's contempt of court, simple as that, it's a pretty clear cut case when someone is asked a simple question and doesn't.

        Dating back many centuries this has been recognised as a problem in court that is hence punishable, it is in fact why British courts went from saying "I promise to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth" to saying "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" precisely because people tried to get away with missing bits out like this guy - i.e. not actually telling the whole truth.

        • by sessamoid (165542)
          Actually, he was asked to list all previous cases he was involved in. He was asked if he "ever" had been involved in such a case. He raised his hand and cited his most recent case. Nobody asked him about any previous cases.
      • by Rogerborg (306625) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @09:45AM (#41538239) Homepage

        Why not RTFA and find out for yourself? It seems clear enough that he lied, at least by omission, in order to get himself on the jury. And there's also precedent that the court can and should assume that he did it for nefarious purposes, regardless of what he says now.

        The man was asked clear questions, and lied. He was given absolutely explicit instruction to disregards his own understanding and experiences of patent law and only use the intrinsic evidence in the case. By his own admission, he disregarded those instructions and set himself up as a secret jury room expect - then got it comically wrong, although Samsung aren't laughing.

        Of course, he may be lying about that as well, which is why the court should at the very least have a hearing to see which of his stories he wants to stick to now.

      • by PortHaven (242123)

        He was asked about lawsuits. He did not disclose them. I am pretty sure he was aware of the lawsuits he has been in. Therefore, yes, we have proof that he intentionally lied.

        Whether it was to enact revenge on Seagate or not is irrelevant.

  • May I suggest this guy [businessinsider.com]?

  • The jury selection wasn't hard but they managed to only follow at most half of the rules I would see as obvious.
    1. anyone who owns an iphone or samsung phone, kick them off the jury
    2. anyone who works with patents heavily in their own company -- oops!
  • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Wednesday October 03, 2012 @09:14AM (#41537829)

    What is this man doing here???

  • So now we get to have a new trial. However it won't be the same trial as they've already argued and received feedback about how persuasive their arguments were.

    Would a retrial just play edited version (minus the struck/objection-sustained stuff) of video back to 12 people and get that jury's vote? It seems like it would be much less effort.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...