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:5, Interesting)
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)
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: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: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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You mean this Statue of Limitations [photobucket.com]?
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:3)
Well, IANAL, so I can apply common sense here, and this guy is in some trouble. One of my best lawyer friends, a prosecutor, shared with me once that she tends to distrust candidate jurors who are eager to serve. She just wants jurors who follow instructions and try to find the truth. Vigilantes never work out ...
Re: (Score:3)
He answered the question as it was asked. It just asked if you had been involved in "a lawsuit", and then after he gave the details of one the questioner went on to the next prospective juror without asking if there were any other instances.
At least from the transcript he didn't appear to lie and given the wording of the questions he could easily have not understood they wanted an enumeration of all such lawsuits. He doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer after all.
Re: (Score:3)
He;d already indicated yes by raising his hand, then when the judge says "LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN." he unsurprisingly gives some details. As do all the other people who raised their hand for the rest of the session.
Re: (Score:3)
Odd how those other people knew that they should state they were involved in multiple cases, but this guy (who later stated he was glad to be on the jury) didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, every time I've been on jury duty the instructions given to jurors in general are VERY clear that during voir dire your job is basically to spill your guts of anything relevant to the questions at hand. As long as you tell the truth there is no such thing as a wrong answer. However, failing to disclose something material to the case is certainly grounds for misconduct.
I'm pretty sure that both times there were very general questions along the lines of "do you have any past history that might affect y
Re:I think for lying during selection (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
After elaborating on the first case, he was not given a chance to continue stating more cases when they moved on to the next person.
Yes, he could have interrupted with "Stop, there's more!", but is that a reasonable expectation, or is the onus on the one querying to make sure they don't proceed to other jurors before the answer is complete?
Shouldn't he reasonably have been asked "are there any more cases?" until he finally answered no, instead of the judge making an incorrect assumption and moving on?
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
And?
I hope that's not all you've set your hopes on.
He answered yes, and gave AN example.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it more valuable to preserve jurors' right to overrule government policies, at the expense of sometimes evil jurors rendering unjust verdicts? Some people see voir dire as a form of jury tampering.
There is some argument to be made for jury nullification in criminal cases. You can plausibly argue that the jury is supposed to be a bulwark against government power, and that if they can't get 12 random people to agree that the law is just, then it shouldn't be enforced.
But I can't see any plausible argumen
They need a new pool of less biased jurors (Score:2)
May I suggest this guy [businessinsider.com]?
well, they followed half of it (Score:2)
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!
Hooogaaaan!! (Score:5, Funny)
What is this man doing here???
Re: (Score:2)
Undergoing interrogation. He's brutal, sir!
Icing the kicker? (Score:2)
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.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
The article says 10 years, but I'm not sure where that comes from.
The Samsung filing states he was asked “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?"
i.e. no time qualifier
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:4, Informative)
"With regards to the Seagate suit and subsequent bankruptcy, Hogan says the court required jurors to disclose any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years -- which he did. The 1993 Seagate business fell well outside that time range."
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/10/03/samsung-attacks-foreman-of-jury-that-awarded-apple-1b/ [cnn.com]
In other words he decided on 10 years (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what? He doesn't get to make that decision. The judge wanted to know ever? That's the judge's call. When it comes to jury selection, they get to decide what is relevant. Doesn't mean you'll be excluded, but they want to know.
For example I was in the pool for a marajuna case (way at the end, so unlikely I'd get on the jury) and the subject of criminal record came up. For employment they can ask about felonies in the last I believe 7 years. The court has wider latitude for juries. So one guy, he was probably 45 or 50, says ya I have a guilty plea for auto theft when I was 18. Judge asks more about it, it was a "young and stupid" kind of thing, his civil rights have been fully restored, and so on. He ended up being on the jury.
It is the kind of thing he wouldn't reveal to an employer, but the court got to ask. They weren't dicks about it, like I said he sat on the jury, but the judge gets to weigh it and make a decision.
So CPT Armchair Lawyer here doesn't get to decide how long they are allowed to ask about. If they asked ever, they get to ask ever.
Re:In other words he decided on 10 years (Score:4, Informative)
Anybody can read the transcript, and there is no mention of a time period. As for whether there were 'other' instructions that said 10 years - who knows? However, in the transcript you can see where other jurors mentioned cases more than 10 years old, and the judge did not say 'I don't care about those'. Instead, he asked those jurors the exact same questions he asked everyone else.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Interesting)
"With regards to the Seagate suit and subsequent bankruptcy, Hogan says the court required jurors to disclose any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years -- which he did. The 1993 Seagate business fell well outside that time range."
That's what this Hogan guys says, but there was no 10 year limit. He made that up. The exact question the judge asked was:
THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with the questions. 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 witness?
That's why they have transcripts, you know.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
He was asked if he was involved in any lawsuits within the last ten years, which he answered. The lawsuit with Seagate occurred in 1993 which is beyond ten years ago. Thus, he did not disclose it because it wasn't asked of him. But let's pretend he attempted to deceive the system in order to screw over Samsung because that sounds better, right?
(emphasis mine)
Where do you get "within the last ten years", it is not in the summary, the article, or the unredacted filing, which says:
“you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” (Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 148:18-21), he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others, including one in which he was sued by his former employer, Seagate, for breach of contract after he failed to repay a promissory note (RT 148:22-150:12; Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30, 1993), Declaration of Susan Estrich (“Estrich Decl.”) Ex. A), and filed for personal bankruptcy six months later (In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan, Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993); Estrich Decl., Ex. B).
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
The '10 years' comment comes from an interview that the juror gave. The transcript does not back up his statement. He may have misunderstood, or maybe the transcript was wrong (I'd think unlikely). But that's the story.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Funny)
pshaw. Primary sources? Yeah, right I'll accept that when I'm dead. Get back to me when you've got a Wikipedia article or, preferably, a tweet.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:4, Funny)
Even better than a tweet, I've got an anonymous Slashdot post implicating that does business in Tehran.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
He was asked if he was involved in any lawsuits within the last ten years, which he answered. The lawsuit with Seagate occurred in 1993 which is beyond ten years ago. Thus, he did not disclose it because it wasn't asked of him. But let's pretend he attempted to deceive the system in order to screw over Samsung because that sounds better, right?
(emphasis mine)
Where do you get "within the last ten years", it is not in the summary, the article, or the unredacted filing, which says:
“you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” (Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 148:18-21), he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others, including one in which he was sued by his former employer, Seagate, for breach of contract after he failed to repay a promissory note (RT 148:22-150:12; Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30, 1993), Declaration of Susan Estrich (“Estrich Decl.”) Ex. A), and filed for personal bankruptcy six months later (In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan, Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993); Estrich Decl., Ex. B).
It's in several other articles [bloomberg.com] since:
Hogan, in a phone interview yesterday, denied that there was any misconduct, saying the court instructions for potential jurors required disclosure of any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years -- and that the 1993 bankruptcy and related litigation involving Seagate fell well outside that time range.
“Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” Hogan said, referring to the bankruptcy and related litigation. “I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.”
Note: I'm not saying he's right and the Samsung brief is wrong - just that that's where the 10 year claim comes from.
If you have a PACER account, you should be able to pull up the Court Reporter's transcript from voir dire, and see what question was asked.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that according to the transcript he was asked a question over and above the "court instructions".
Where do you get that? It's not in the article or Samsung's brief, which merely states:
The jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, failed to answer truthfully during voir dire. Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” (Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 148:18-21), he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others, including one in which he was sued by his former employer, Seagate, for breach of contract after he failed to repay a promissory note (RT 148:22-150:12; Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30, 1993), Declaration of Susan Estrich (“Estrich Decl.”) Ex. A), and filed for personal bankruptcy six months later (In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan, Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993); Estrich Decl., Ex. B).
It doesn't say anything there about court instructions, or additional questions beyond them. Do you have a different source?
Re: (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:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
It was a yes or no question. He answered yes.
No, he did not answer "yes." This is from the transcript of the voir dire:
See what he did there? Instead of saying "yes," he answered as if that were the only case. By omitting the other two cases he was involved in, he effectively misrepresented that this was the only case. I'm sorry, but it is extremely foreseeable that being sued by Seagate is a material fact that should have been disclosed. He also lied later in this exchange:
He said months ago that his own experiences relating to patents helped him decide how he should rule, and then he proceeded to "help" other jurors understand based on that information--NOT the judge's instruction. And his statements since have indicated that he was going out of his way to be on this jury so that he could be a part of this big case.
It all looks pretty straight-forward to me. The guy borrowed $25,000 from Seagate in 1991, didn't pay it back, got sued, declared bankruptcy to dodge his financial obligation, and apparently still is buttsore about it. In 2012, he had an ax to grind against Seagate, he hid relevant information to get on the jury so that he could grind it, and then he proceeded to trash Samsung--the currently majority owners of Seagate--to get back at them. And now he's going out to the press and lying about the questions and instructions to not look like the tool he is.
I hope they nail his ass to the wall for juror misconduct and that Samsung gets an actual fair and impartial trial out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope they nail his ass to the wall for juror misconduct and that Samsung gets an actual fair and impartial trial out of it.
After the Billion-Dollar ruling against Samsung last time, good luck finding a jury of 12 people who haven't heard about the case and had a chance to form an opinion about it. Even my grandmother, who suffers from Alzheimer's, asked me about it last time I saw her.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:4)
I hope they nail his ass to the wall for juror misconduct and that Samsung gets an actual fair and impartial trial out of it.
After the Billion-Dollar ruling against Samsung last time, good luck finding a jury of 12 people who haven't heard about the case and had a chance to form an opinion about it. Even my grandmother, who suffers from Alzheimer's, asked me about it last time I saw her.
I'm pretty sure 98% of the general public doesn't give a rats ass which soulless megacorp wins this fight and thus they have not been following it with even a fraction of the attention they lavish on their favourite reality shows. The only people who care about this lawsuit are geeks, lawyers and possibly a few "business analysts".
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:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
However to be clear, it was not Samsung or Apple who were asking questions it was the judge. When Mr. Hogan answered questions about his 2008 law suit, but failed to disclose his other law suits, Judge Koh should have asked if there were any other cases, but failed to do so. The judge's failure to probe deeper and Mr. Hogan's failure to fully disclose his past should not be held against Samsung. Samsung doesn't have to prove perjury (which would be difficult as Mr. Hogan's answers were factual, but incomplete), only jury misconduct. My understanding (IANAL) is that the standard for jury misconduct is much lower - innocently answering questions wrongly can result in misconduct. However even if misconduct is shown, Samsung has to prove that the misconduct resulted in a bias. Bias is harder to prove however Mr. Hogan's post-trial statements seem to indicate such bias. He said the trial was the "highlight of my career - my life even" and that he wanted to "send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do". Sounds a lot like bias to me.
Samsung has a much stronger case for bias and misconduct involving Mr. Hogan on the claim that he ignored the Judge's instructions to the jury, relied on his own understanding of patent laws, and used his position as jury foreman to convince the jury to rule in favour of Apple. Jurors are not expected to be a clean slate, with NO outside knowledge or experience, however they ARE expected to weigh the evidence presented in the case and the legal issues as explained by the judge. If they have external expertise, they are NOT to use this to persuade or convince other jurors. In post-trial interviews, Mr. Hogan said that he explained to the rest of the jury the standards (his own) for infringement of design patents, functional patents and prior art. This is really the smoking gun. Jurors are supposed to deliberate on the evidence and the points of law as explained in the jury instructions. They are not supposed to conduct their own research (either on evidence or law), experiments, re-enactments, visit the scene of the crime, seek outside evidence, etc. and if they have outside information they MAY NOT share it with other jurors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Read the F article.
The actual court transcript says that the question was
"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 witness?"
The answer given by Mr Hogan refers to 2008 only.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
I see you get your knowledge of this stuff from movies.
This was jury selection, not the trial. The judge was asking questions, not the attorneys. The juror is not on trial, and is not a witness. He is being asked simple, direct questions by the judge, for the purpose of seeing if there is anything that would disqualify him. The juror obviously knows this, and it is his responsibilty and duty to state any and all disqualifying information.
These things take long enough as it is. There is no reason to drag it out any further by treating every potential juror as some kind of hostile witness who needs to be thoroughy interrogated.
Re: (Score:3)
He wasn't asked for an example, he was asked to explain why he raised his hand. Absent the case he presented, he still would've been required to answer in the affirmative, which means his answer was not a full and complete answer, an expectation which is made clear during voir dire. If that expectation was not made clear by the judge, there were other procedural errors.
Re: (Score:2)
A lie by omission is still a lie. It's amazing to me how you people try to rationalize this type of behavior.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:2)
He was asked if he was involved in any lawsuits within the last ten years, which he answered. The lawsuit with Seagate occurred in 1993 which is beyond ten years ago. Thus, he did not disclose it because it wasn't asked of him. But let's pretend he attempted to deceive the system in order to screw over Samsung because that sounds better, right?
Read the court transcripts before you mouth off so wrongly, o trollish one. There was no "ten year" stipulation in the question. The stipulated time period was "ever" [groklaw.net], and it was explicitly stipulated by the Judge in the voir-dire.
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
the court: okay. welcome back. please take a seat. we had a few more departures in your absence. let's continue with the questions. 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 witness?
from the voir dire transcript [groklaw.net]
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).
Re: (Score:2)
where are you getting this 10 years stuff?
This ten year stuff is a quote the juror gave Bloomberg in an interview
Hogan, in a phone interview yesterday, denied that there was any misconduct, saying the court instructions for potential jurors required disclosure of any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years -- and that the 1993 bankruptcy and related litigation involving Seagate fell well outside that time range.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-03/samsung-claims-jury-foreman-misconduct-tainted-apple-case.html [bloomberg.com]
It might not be in
Re: (Score:2)
Hence his accusation towards Samsung:
"he also wondered aloud whether Samsung "let me in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn't go in their favor.""
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's more than that. It's 'you think a partner in a law firm looks over the names of potential jurors in a case she is not involved in just to see if the name of someone her husband sued 20 years ago pops up'?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why was this modded troll?
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
It's marked troll because it's incorrect. Groklaw has the transcripts, he was asked if he was ever involved in any such lawsuits with no time constraints. 10 years was never mentioned or asked
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (Score:5, Informative)
Trolly troll troll. He ignored prior art because of a notion he invented himself that prior art has to be "interchangeable". He influenced the jury to disregard prior art against Apple's patents because the prior art didn't run on iOS. That he was biased against Samsung is pretty obvious from the fact that he didn't also apply this (completely wrong) notion of "interchangeability" to Samsung's supposedly infringing software. If it has to run on iOS to be prior art, why doesn't it have to run on iOS to be infringing?
Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So that would make him a witness, then, right? En expert witness, int he eyes of a jury with little knowlege of the matter, ie patent law?
Nice. If I ever serve on a jury, I'll be exerting all my limited faculties towards the evidence and judicial instructions, thank you, and not some other juror who's qualifications are essentially their personality.
And I hope the heck I never end up being judged by my peers.
Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been on a jury, and you'd be amazed at how easy it is for the entire jury to fall in line behind someone who seems to know what he's talking about, especially if the trial involves something few people have experience in (such as patent law). If the rest of the jury trusted him as the resident expert on the issue at hand, they would likely go along with whatever he said.
Of course. One of the reasons for this is that juries will almost always have a few fairly stupid people on them. There's a joke that says something along the lines of juries are made up of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty and there's some truth to that. I have severed twice and the most recent was 7 years ago in a criminal case. I remember one morning waiting in the jury room before we went to court to hear testimony and 3 of the guys on the jury got into an argument where each of them argued that he was more technologically incompetent than the other 2. Really. No exaggeration. So when these are examples of your jury you can understand why they might be swayed by someone who seems to know what he is doing, especially if he is a foreman, because they will have no idea about such a complex subject and will defer to anyone who seems to be an expert. Also, some people just want to get out ASAP and will go along with any majority that develops.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, I will never serve on a jury as long as I live in Indiana. I have the fortunate, unfortunately, knowledge of knowing what our stat Constitution says about juror's rights and consequently due to my willingness to exert those rights has me consistently thrown out during voir dire.
Lawyers don't seem like it when you cite specific articles and sections from the state constitution to justify your position and claim it to be morally right. I can only
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
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.
Revisionist nothing (Score:3)
Go look it up. Juries have the ability to nullify on account of an innocent verdict being un-reviewable. The prohibition against double jeopardy means that once someone has been found innocent it is done, no further review. They do not have the power as a specific matter of law.
Judges technically have a nullification power too for the same reason. If a judge dismisses a case after it has come to trial, it is done. As soon as it goes to trial, jeopardy applies, no retrial.
Go read up on the actual way the law
Peers (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is why the it's supposed to be a jury of your peers.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. I'd like to see Microsoft, Google, IBM, Sony, et al. in a jury box!
If corporations are persons, does that mean they're subject to subpoena?
Re:Peers (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a jury of domain experts, not peers. Legally, peers means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives. It does not mean a jury ethnically, educationally, economically, or sexually the same as the defendant.
Besides, domain experts are often more biased than peers. see vi vs emacs, windows vs mac, linux vs windows, ford vs chevy, .net vs java, perl vs ruby, etc, etc, etc,
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have no idea what you're talking about.
The prior art most often being discussed was prior art showing that Apple's claims to their patents are weak if not completely invalid. It has nothing to do with prior art submitted by Apple in its defense against Samsung claims.
So yes, it doesn't take long to research these things... or does it? I think you haven't been following the details of this story as many here have.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for quoting a quote from the very guy whose integrity is under scrutiny.
Many of us are quite aware of what he has said and it has all invariably become additional proof that this guy doesn't know what he thinks he knows and convinced the rest of the jury that he was an expert and they all followed him. Great. His notions of "compatibility" when judging patents are completely wrong and so any of the decisions he participated in making are in serious question.
It has also been demonstrated that he had
Re: (Score:2)
The question is not whether Apple infringed prior art. That is not the point of prior art. Prior art says, that if it exists, than Samsung did not infringe Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
They asked if I'd ever insulted, hit, beaten or murdered someone. I said Yes and told them that I'd called a man an idiot last week.
There was no followup.
Unfortunately, I would EQUALLY as guilty for not mentioning it as he was for not mentioning a patent-related lawsuit with a Samsung-based firm while being a jury member on a patent-related Samsung court case.
There's ALWAYS the fallback of not stating a just reason. Just because they didn't ask if he'd ever taken any backhander from Apple before today, do
Re: (Score:2)
No, in this case and your hypothetical the attorneys are at fault for not thoroughly questioning the person. A simple "yes" is a correct and adequate answer, and he offered even more information than that. If the attorneys wanted a complete list of such incidents, they should have asked for one.
This is not juror misconduct, but bad representation.
Re: (Score:2)
The attorneys were not asking the question, "the court" (judge) was.
Re: (Score:3)
Then the judge was at fault for not asking "Is that all?".
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a mistrial. I'm saying that the juror isn't at fault for not offering more information than was asked of him.
Re:He did as he was asked (Score:5, Informative)
At the time of his lawsuit (1993), Seagate wasn't owned by Samsung. And wouldn't be for more than a decade later, until 2011.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only one of Samsung's lawyers was on his original case...
Re: (Score:2)
That's not hard to figure out. They knew about it because they were involved in the lawsuit. I'd say they (they being a lawyer at the company, but probably not the lawyers involved - to avoid any potential misconduct) knew about it from the minute he showed up on a list of potential jurors and figured "Hey, ace in the hole right? If we lose we've got a strong case for juror misconduct and a mistrial."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
In my brief experience in court, one lesson that my lawyer taught me was to honestly answer questions, but don't offer info not asked for.
Which, ironically, was something that Hogan probably learned from his attorney in his first two court cases that he failed to mention.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because Samsung's lawyers are going to come out of it looking very stupid.
1. He was asked a yes or no question.
2. He answered yes, truthfully.
3. No followup questions were asked based on his first answer.
This will probably get thrown out the first time the judge lays eyes on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why seal? (Score:4, Informative)
Being in a jury selection process myself recently, the lawyers barely talk about the parties at all. In fact, they are as round-about and obtuse as possible, to the point of asking nearly idiotic questions like "do you have any preconceived notions about patents?". So unless he was following Seagate's progress on a daily basis for 15+ years, he was without a doubt NOT informed during the process of selection that Samsung had a share in Seagate. He probably didn't know that Seagate owns Maxtor. Or that Apple owns a stake in Akamai. Such things are not really common knowledge except maybe here at slashdot. ;)
Very few lawyers go to the trouble of posting a list of every company and sub-company that a corporation of that size owns and all of the stock options that it also holds (it's unlikely that such information would be easily available, as well), and then asking jurors to announce if they ever had dealings with any of these dozens of companies. They hardly even mention the company's name if they can help it.
In every instance that I have seen, they ask the potential jurors if they are able to be impartial. If the defendant says yes, and they don't do any followup, it's the lawyer's decision. Even then, even if there IS a bias, the lawyers have the option to excuse the person. Though they also always ask "Will this bias keep you from making an impartial decision in this specific case?" before deciding to finally get rid of you or not. Sometimes they do not as they have bigger idiots and problems to get rid of (like a juror that is too smart or opinionated or conservative or...) and then run out of options. Sometimes they simply don't ask any more questions and move on.
If the lawyers say the jury that they have selected is acceptable, it's not the jury's fault any more.
Re:The Real Reason Samsung Lost. (Score:4, Informative)
Incorrect. Apple was guilty of the same behavior, and upon appeal, the judge issued instruction that either both parties receive Adverse Inference Instructions, or neither. Both parties opted for no instructions. Here's the source. [groklaw.net]
Re:The Real Reason Samsung Lost. (Score:5, Informative)
Better not to link to 'that site' (f.o.s.s.patents) as it is run by the notorious you_pay_for_what_I_say F.Mueller.
Here is the story on inverse inference [groklaw.net] on Groklaw. While some may claim that site is biased as well (against software patents in this case) there is no money involved, just personal and professional conviction - and common sense of course.
Re: (Score:2)
http://nextpoint.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/learn-how-to-avoid-a-case-killer/ [wordpress.com]
There's a big difference, though. The judge did effectively say that both companies should be considered to be acting in such a manner, but the instructions against Samsung (as the defendant) obviously carried far more weight. And it allowed (legally) personal feelings to be part of the decision making process at that point by the jury. At that point, from a practical standpoint, Apple didn't really have to show everything (that's
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify:
Judge: "They both were lying asshats. Assume Samsung is guilty and unable to make an adequate defense against the charges. Assume Apple's claims are overblown. Feel free to be as impartial as you see fit. I'm done with this."
Jury:"Awesome. "We'll be back in a few hours after we figure out what charges Samsung can't defend against and which ones Apple is going overboard on."
Jury: "We'll just disregard all this prior art hubbub because our foreman has determined that it doesn't matter, on account of that they used different processors. Although this conflicts directly with what the instructions they gave us say, he's an unbiased engineer right? Good enough."