Unredacted Filings Reveal Claims of Juror Misconduct in Apple vs Samsung Trial 282
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.
I think for lying during selection (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:4, Insightful)
"ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness"
Well, if he was involved in 'dozens or hundreds of suits', he forgot dozens or hundreds of opporunities to answer truthfully.
You're not making a very good argument there.
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:4, Insightful)
"ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness"
Well, if he was involved in 'dozens or hundreds of suits', he forgot dozens or hundreds of opporunities to answer truthfully.
You're not making a very good argument there.
I thing what parent means is that if he had been involved in 200 cases and listed 180 of them then it would seem reasonable that he might have forgotten them. Even so, if one was his personal bankruptcy then I would be surprised if he forgot that.
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:2, Insightful)
Why was this modded troll?
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Insightful)
See it for yourself: court transcript from Jury Selection [groklaw.net]
Court: The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a vitness?
...
Prospective juror: In 2008, after my company went belly up, the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me
He goes on to give details of that case (which was settled out of court). He never disclosed the dispute with Seagate. But obviously, the court never said anything about not disclosing cases older than 10 years. So, he failed to disclose a very important case, probably because doing so would have meant that he couldn't have served in the jury, which he really much wanted (see TFA).
This is also why "stupid juries" can be preferable (Score:5, Insightful)
People always whine about how courts seem to not want people with expertise in an area, and this is the reason. The jury is meant to be the judge of fact, not the judge of law (the judge is the judge of law). So the idea is they are given a set of evidence, and told what the law is and how to apply it, and then, in that context only, they are to decide what the facts show. They aren't to use outside information, they aren't to use their own supposed understanding. They consider the evidence presented and the law as instructed.
The whole idea is so you don't have an armchair lawyer with a hazy understanding of the law making bad decisions. You don't want someone who says "I'm an expert on this, listen to me," and turns out to be wrong, or motivated by something else.
The jury is not supposed to be an investigative force or anything. They are just supposed to judge the facts they are given in the context of the law they are instructed. Hence while you don't want people who are "stupid" in terms of low IQ, you do want people who do not have a background in the case. You want people who will consider things with an open mind, not come in assuming they know how things should go already.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:2, Insightful)
It was a yes or no question. He answered yes.
How is that not answering truthfully?
A better followup question would be" HOW MANY lawsuits have you been involved in, and with whom?"
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:4, Insightful)
They have to prove he lied. He answered yes to a yes or no question. Truthfully.
The lawyers needed to ask follow up questions based on that answer. That's not his fault they didn't.
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:4, Insightful)
This. The court doesn't have time to listen to details about every case that every potential juror has been involved in. If Hogan had been involved in 200 cases, they never would have given him time to go over all 200. Instead, you ask the jury whether any of those lawsuits involved specific parties or issues related or similar to the present case. Here's what the Samsung lawyers should've asked him after he raised his hand.
Samsung: "How many lawsuits have you been involved in during your life?"
Hogan: "Two."
Samsung: "Did either of those cases involve either of the parties involved in this case?"
Hogan: "No."
Samsung: "Did either of those cases involve counsel or families, friends, or other persons with close relationships to counsel to either of the parties involved in this case?"
Hogan: "Yes."
Samsung: "Did either of those cases involve patent litigation?"
Hogan: "Yes."
Samsung: "Your Honor, we thank Mr. Hogan for his time and ask that he be dismissed from the jury pool."
Judge: "So ordered. Mr. Hogan, thank you for your service.
Re:He did as he was asked (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? After all, the foreman was making his decisions in 2012, which is after Samsung owned Seagate.
Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers (and the court) don't like it when a propspective juror asserts a particular layman's interpretation of legal language, without the expertise and knowledge to include relevant case law and history. They don't like it because it makes it too easy for a party to say "See, Juror X didn't follow the court's instructions on what the law is".
Which is exactly the problem that Samsung has with Mr Hogan's statements on what it takes to be prior art.
But yes, it will keep you out of the jury pool. Alternatively, you could just state that your are in favor of the death penalty for all criminals, including traffic violations.
--Joe
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Insightful)
In voir dire, failing to answer completely is the same thing as not answering truthfully. It is a lie of omission because he was asked to fully elaborate, not cherry pick the lawsuit(s) that had no bearing on the trial while omitting the one(s) which did.
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:5, Insightful)
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.