Judge To Review Whether Foreman In Apple v. Samsung Hid Info 98
thomst writes "CNet's Greg Sandoval is reporting that Lucy Koh, the Federal judge in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case, is reviewing whether jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose his own patent suit v. Seagate during the jury selection process. Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple, has complained that Hogan's failure to disclose his own status as a former patent case plaintiff constituted misconduct serious enough to invalidate the jury's verdict in the case."
Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chickens? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:3, Insightful)
that really depends if your biased opinion differs from my biased opinion!
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.
Re:Like the next Grisham novel (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a potential juror, would you want such a thorough investigation (which you did not ask for or have any control over) on your life? And remember, the attorneys are officers of the court, so what you are really suggesting is that the government (court) thoroughly investigate you, just because you MIGHT be called on to perform your civic duty. No thanks.
Re:Transcript of jury selection (Score:3, Insightful)
The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "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? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Insightful)
That question doesn't request a full history, it doesn't even request an explanation. It asks a yes-or-no question.
The juror's behavior amounts to this, while in voir dire for a rape crime.
Judge: "Have you or any one close to you ever been charged with a sex crime?"
Juror: "-sigh- I was charged with indecency for peeing in a dumpster behind a school when I was 19."
And then not mentioning the rape charges 5 years later...
When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.
The juror wasn't on trial nor was he being audited. He was being vetted as a juror. Not disclosing material information is a waste of everyone's time.
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but that's the problem and the lie of omission.
If he had just said yes, then there could have been followup asking for full disclosure. But, since he said yes and then gave a followup immediately it would be natural for anyone to think that his followup was complete. Thus, he's guilty of omitting pertinent details that may have affected his standing.
Here's an example (only hypothetical):
Question: "Have you ever been arrested in Texas?"
My Answer: "Yes, I was detained for disorderly conduct but was acquitted"
Result: Most of the people hearing that would think that was all and go about their business.
The real story: The above is true, but I was also arrested for several other possibly relevant crimes.
What happens when they find out: a shit storm
Sure, the people doing the questioning failed to be exactly precise, but that doesn't mean I wasn't hiding something.
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:4, Insightful)
People refuse to see the deliberate nature of Samsung's behavior and legal maneuvering. Motorolla too for their FRAND abuse.
I'm torn on the Samsung issue. Motorola though, and FRAND? Apple was offered the chance to join the FRAND pool and get access for free if they would just cough up some of the patents they never should have been granted on the basis of obviousness and said no. Then they wanted to get the same kind of pricing members of the pool get, and Motorola said no. That's somehow wrong? I think not.