Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the just-get-judge-judy dept.

The Courts 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.

cancel ×

282 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Unredacted fillings (-1, Offtopic)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41537433)

You need to get a better dentist

Say are they still worried about Mercury in fillings?

Re:Unredacted fillings (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537453)

Yes, and how often you fill uranus too.

He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537445)

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?

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (-1, Troll)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about 2 years ago | (#41537479)

Even better are the Groklaw articles saying that he purposefully ignored prior art. Those hacks didn't even know he was talking about a Samsung patent, and they didn't consider prior art because they found Apple didn't infringe anyway - making Apple's prior art argument moot.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1, Insightful)

tqk (413719) | about 2 years ago | (#41538259)

Why was this modded troll?

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (5, Informative)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about 2 years ago | (#41538451)

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 (1)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about 2 years ago | (#41538561)

bah, didn't see the post above yours. /. threading is horrid

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537513)

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 (3, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41537939)

"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 (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#41538507)

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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538577)

Were you on this jury?
Did you read the written instructions?
Do you know if the questions asked were in context of the written instructions?

No, no and no.

So your opinion counts even less than his.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (5, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41537521)

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 (4, Informative)

robbak (775424) | about 2 years ago | (#41537631)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537653)

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 (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538575)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538669)

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.

It's not a real story until there's a tweet about the Wikipedia article, which is then read by some journalists who write a number of newspaper articles, and an editor comes back to the Wikipedia article and carefully cites the articles as sources.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (4, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#41537679)

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 (5, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41537775)

The problem with that is that according to the transcript he was asked a question over and above the "court instructions". The court instructions refer to a form that potential jurors are asked to fill out. The transcript refers to a direct question asked during voir dire. While it is possible that he legitimately believed that the court instructions applied to the question, that does not change the fact that he failed to answer the question as asked. It is also possible he either misunderstood the court instructions or flat out lied about them and that no such instruction was ever issued.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#41538293)

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:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41538639)

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 (0)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41537721)

The time period is irrelevant. It was a yes or no question.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41538101)

It is the lawyers job to extractnfacts. That is why we hire lawyers and not archaeologists for voire dire. Both discover facts, but lawyers have to I extract information from often hostile persons legally. In this case the question was have you been involved in a lawsuit. If the lawyer did ask clarifying and expansive questions, then that is the incompetency of the lawyer and Samsung should sue the lawyers. Based on the single incidence of the lawsuit, it is reasonable to have not selected the juror. Certainly no potential juror has to volunteer his whole life story.

In reality at the time there was probably no issue and probably follow up questions showed he was reasonable. Just answering yes to a question like this does not necessarily disqualify anyone. If the potential juror said it would not effect his decision, a reasonable lawyer might take that into account. What this is is a bunch of lawyers who have lost a case they probably should not have lost trying to cover their asses and bill hours grasping at whatever straws hey can, throwing mud and seeing what sticks.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (2)

ledow (319597) | about 2 years ago | (#41537527)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41538665)

So what? It was a yes or no question. He answered yes.

If the lawyers did their job, they'd ask HOW MANY as the next question. And with whom as the following question.

Hell, Tom Cruise could have done their questioning better.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537535)

The guy is a complete nuthead. Just check out an interview with him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#41537545)

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 (4, Informative)

yincrash (854885) | about 2 years ago | (#41537553)

Incorrect.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537579)

where are you getting this 10 years stuff? There's no mention in the transcript that this question was limited to a 10 year period when asked by the Court.

The jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, failed to answer truthfully during voir dire. Asked by the Court whether âoeyou 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?â (Reporterâ(TM)s Transcript (âoeRTâ) 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 (âoeEstrich Decl.â) 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). Samsung has a substantial strategic relationship with Seagate (Estrich Decl. Ex. C), which culminated last year in the publicized sale of a division to Seagate in a deal worth $1.375 billion, making Samsung the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate (id. Exs. D-G). The attorney who sued Mr. Hogan on Seagateâ(TM)s behalf is the husband of a Quinn Emanuel partner. Id. Â3. Mr. Hoganâ(TM)s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#41537867)

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 the transcript, perhaps it was in written instructions - I don't know the procedure

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41537761)

Better yet the lawyer who sued the foremen is the spouse of the lawyer on Samsung's legal team! But Samsung didn't know about that until after the verdict *wink* *wink*

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41538007)

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:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#41538181)

Because discussing the names of jurors is common dinner table conversation. The husband probably didn't even remember the 20 year old suit. Samsung was compelled to disclose the connection to the court after researching and finding the records.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (1)

Duncan Booth (869800) | about 2 years ago | (#41538367)

No. The lawyer who sued the foreman is the spouse of a partner in the same law firm. Nowhere in the published papers does it say whether the lawyer had any direct connection to this particular case.

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538609)

You think a Lawyer knows every person that their spouse has sued in over 19 year career?

Re:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked (4, Insightful)

hydrofix (1253498) | about 2 years ago | (#41538469)

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).

He lied when asked a very open ended question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538647)

EHHH - WRONG!!!

according to the transcript: "...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?" 'Ever' is not ten years.

There was no time limitation.

The asshole lied, plain and simple - care to change your tune now?

I think for lying during selection (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41537449)

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

Re:I think for lying during selection (4, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#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:I think for lying during selection (2, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41537549)

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.

Re:I think for lying during selection (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41537625)

Assuming there was no statue of limitation on the lawsuit.

Re:I think for lying during selection (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537717)

You mean this Statue of Limitations [photobucket.com] ?

Re:I think for lying during selection (4, Informative)

The Moof (859402) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:I think for lying during selection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537669)

I don't see how he can prove it was unintentional, unless he was involved in dozens or hundreds of suits, in which case forgetting to mention one can concievably happen.

Re:I think for lying during selection (3, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#41537825)

"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 (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41538001)

"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 (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#41538063)

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:I think for lying during selection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538273)

He answered the question as it was asked.

No, he didn't and that's what started the problem. The question asked was a yes/no question and his answer should have been simply yes, no or some variation of "I don't recall". He should have let the lawyers tell him if they wanted details and, if so, what details they wanted.

Re:I think for lying during selection (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41537793)

They don't have to prove that he intentionally lied. That precedent was set in the Scooter Libby case where he was convicted of perjury for remembering a conversation differently than the other party to the conversation.

Re:I think for lying during selection (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#41537763)

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.

Re:I think for lying during selection (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41537767)

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:I think for lying during selection (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538379)

It's really common when there are a bunch of question "within the last 10 years" for there to be an instruction up front, like "for this section limit answers only to the last 10 years" and then they go on and ask a bunch of yes/no questions.

So if you just look at the question "no" may be a lie, but if you consider the instructions given earlier it is not. You can't tell without context for this kind of questionnaire.

Re:I think for lying during selection (4, Informative)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:I think for lying during selection (1)

sessamoid (165542) | about 2 years ago | (#41538357)

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.

Re:I think for lying during selection (0)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#41538685)

Nobody asked him about any previous cases.

So, in other words, he lied by omission about previous cases (he was asked about all) and the court took him at his word since he was under oath.

Re:I think for lying during selection (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#41538239)

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:I think for lying during selection (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#41538493)

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.

Go deep!! (-1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about 2 years ago | (#41537459)

Hail Mary time!!

How does the rest of the jury feel? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537465)

Ya go to a courthouse, and that's where some lying yahoo leads you down the garden path. But, on the other hand, if they bought the foreman's nonsensical opinions, and didn't even consider prior art - they were a bunch of scary peers.

Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (0)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about 2 years ago | (#41537503)

Ya go to a courthouse, and that's where some lying yahoo leads you down the garden path. But, on the other hand, if they bought the foreman's nonsensical opinions, and didn't even consider prior art - they were a bunch of scary peers.

They didn't consider prior art because they found Apple didn't infringe on Samsung's patent anyway. If you didn't infringe, the prior art argument doesn't matter.

Seriously it doesn't take long to research these things.

And the reason they found no infringement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537683)

Oh, that's right: they believed the bollocks of this juror on a egotrip.

Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537695)

GP probably means the devices where they did find infringement. You know, those that added up to a billion dollars in damages. They didn't consider prior art properly for those either.

Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41537805)

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:How does the rest of the jury feel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538269)

Well, since you weren't in the jury room, here's an account of how they addressed that:

On whether he had a feeling that the case would sway overwhelmingly in Apple's favor:

"No. At that point in time, I thought it was going to ultimately lean the other wayWe were at a stalemate, but some of the jurors were not sure of the patent prosecution process. Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it. What we did is we started talking about one and when the day was over and I was at home, thinking about that patent claim by claim, limit by limit, I had what we would call an a-ha moment and I suddenly decided I could defend this if it was my patentAnd with that, I took that story back to the jury and laid it out for them. They understood the points I was talking about and then we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on. We got those all sorted out and decided which ones were valid and which ones were not.

Emphasis mine.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/28/apple-v-samsung-meet-the-foreman-of-the-jury/ [cnn.com]

Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41538365)

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 disregarded more than one of the judge's instructions and so any and all of what he has said and done is doubtful.

Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#41538539)

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:How does the rest of the jury feel? (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 2 years ago | (#41537569)

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.

Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (2)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#41537877)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537885)

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.

Shit.

That's depressing.

Take any random collection of people, and we get a pretty uneven ratio of real thinkers to herd mentality, spineless sponge heads. It's depressing as hell to think that any social system, let alone justice, can hinge on groups of these retarded apes collectively achieving anything.

Re:How does the rest of the jury feel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537923)

Which is why the it's supposed to be a jury of your peers. A housewife, fry cook, professional athlete are unlikely to understand the intricacies of technology or patent law. Perhaps the jury should be comprised of people with specific domain knowledge, as relating to the patents in question.

Peers (3, Interesting)

srussia (884021) | about 2 years ago | (#41538271)

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:How does the rest of the jury feel? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41538341)

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:How does the rest of the jury feel? (3, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about 2 years ago | (#41538123)

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:How does the rest of the jury feel? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 2 years ago | (#41538125)

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 hope that during each voir dire I manage to taint the rest of the jurors in the room with what is right.

This is also why "stupid juries" can be preferable (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#41538593)

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.

He did as he was asked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537489)

He was asked if he had ever been involved in a lawsuit. He answered yes and cited an example. There was no followup. He answered truthfully and correctly. Sour grapes and all that.

Re:He did as he was asked (2)

ledow (319597) | about 2 years ago | (#41537611)

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, doesn't mean he shouldn't have explicitly stated it (either then, or in private to the judge) if that's what had happened.

Mistrial. Instantaneous mistrial. At least in most civilised countries.

Re:He did as he was asked (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41537659)

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:He did as he was asked (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#41537887)

The attorneys were not asking the question, "the court" (judge) was.

Re:He did as he was asked (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41538235)

Then the judge was at fault for not asking "Is that all?".

Re:He did as he was asked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538583)

Seriously? You think the judge will see it that way? You think Samsung will allow that?

WTF are you smoking?

Re:He did as he was asked (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537773)

If anybody should have payed this guy, it was not Apple. :) Look at what he's accomplished: demolished any chance of the jury properly considering the evidence; lying about his prior lawsuits; then going out and giving interviews left and right about what he's done. He's single-handedly made sure of a mistrial.

Re:He did as he was asked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537801)

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.

I can't find a link for this, but I'm pretty sure at the time of the jurors lawsuit with Seagate that Samsung didn't hold any shares in Seagate.

It's a bit of reach to link the two

Re:He did as he was asked (4, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41538401)

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.

They need a new pool of less biased jurors (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41537537)

May I suggest this guy [businessinsider.com] ?

So we start the ride again... (1)

gale the simple (1931540) | about 2 years ago | (#41537589)

.. but it is a little scary. My first thought was that he was essentially to carry out a simple mission. Few people would go out of their way to be on a jury. I don't know if he was paid off ( if so, good job ), had an axe gring ( if so, great job) or simply wanted some fame (mostly meh then ) from being a part of the jury on one of the relatively big cases.

  Unfortunately, we won't know any time soon and anything else, at this point, is nothing but speculation. It is a shame, because I am starting the enjoy the ride. Pass the popcorn plz

Samsung's motion (0, Flamebait)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41537651)

These are Samsung's claims. Not to be taken as fact. What is interesting is how did Samsung know about he foremen's previous lawsuit? You would think they would have done a background check. Makes you wonder.

Re:Samsung's motion (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41537845)

Background checks take time. By the time they could dig out info about his prior lawsuit he was already on the jury.

Re:Samsung's motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538261)

I had to have one done for work, full federal criminal background check. It took roughly 3 weeks and returned nothing of substance besides an incorrect filing for writ of habeas corpus for someone who just coincidentally had the same name as me.

Re:Samsung's motion (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41538419)

If only one of Samsung's lawyers was on his original case...

Re:Samsung's motion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41537851)

Makes you wonder.

No it doesn't.

Re:Samsung's motion (1)

alaffin (585965) | about 2 years ago | (#41537959)

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:Samsung's motion (1)

hhw (683423) | about 2 years ago | (#41538121)

Read more carefully. It was the husband of one of the partners at the firm representing Samsung, which does not appear to have even been actively involved in the case. Your bias is showing.

well, they followed half of it (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41537689)

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!

Hooogaaaan!! (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 2 years ago | (#41537829)

What is this man doing here???

Don't think he got a chance to mention other cases (1, Informative)

tipo159 (1151047) | about 2 years ago | (#41538037)

I read the transcript from voir dire. Given the way that the questions were asked, I don't think that Mr. Hogan was given the opportunity to mention the other cases.

He described the most recent case and indicated that it wouldn't affect his ability to be a good juror. Then the next person was asked about their case. Then the question was asked of "anyone else".

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. Mr. Hogan was never asked about additional court cases after he described the most recent one.

Re:Don't think he got a chance to mention other ca (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 2 years ago | (#41538303)

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.

Why seal? (1)

acklenx (646834) | about 2 years ago | (#41538069)

I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it.

I don't. Why would you want to seal that? It seams significant and a pretty cut and dried fact (according to the transcript). So why not be out loud about it? Are they trying to not hurt the feelings of the guy that lied, and potentially cost them $1B? Samsung has hurt my feelings in the past when I tried to get some tech support from them for the device I paid them money for.

Re:Why seal? (1)

gabebear (251933) | about 2 years ago | (#41538413)

I think it's very possible he didn't intentionally lie. He did talk about a more-recent lawsuit he'd been involved in and the contract dispute was nearly 20 years ago(Samsung took a stake in Seagate in 2011).

Samsung is probably due a new trial for this though.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725 [groklaw.net]

Koreans always win (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41538255)

in the end. They kick up a fuss about spreading more openness and transparency around the world if the elite of America/Europe (who have zero integrity) don't comply, and of course they do indeed comply! Case overturned and 3 diamondseh don't lose a billion - that would be my guess.

Samsung themselves only care about their own Korean people and feel confident that any settlement won't adversely effect their beloved people, so at least they have some integrity, even if they are arguably naiive/blind, or simply just not that smart..

The Real Reason Samsung Lost. (1, Informative)

Plekto (1018050) | about 2 years ago | (#41538557)

Samsung was destroying emails and manipulating the discovery process.
http://internationaledisclosure.blogspot.com/2012/09/apple-v-samsung-largest-international.html [blogspot.com]
Here's what the judge had to say:

  “Apple sought a finding that Samsung spoliated evidence, and as a sanction for such conduct, an adverse inference jury instruction “to the effect that: (1) Samsung had a duty to preserve relevant evidence, including emails; Samsung failed to preserve large volumes of relevant emails and other documents; Samsung acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the relevant documents; and the jury may presume that the documents that Samsung failed to preserve would have been favorable to Apple's case and unfavorable to Samsung; and (2) if the jury finds infringement of any Apple patent, trademark, or trade dress, that jury may infer that the infringement was intentional, willful, and without regard to Apple's rights.”

The jury was issued an Adverse Inference Instruction by the judge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference [wikipedia.org]
Quote from Wikipedia:
"The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit pointed out in 2004, in a case involving spoliation (destruction) of evidence, that "...the giving of an adverse inference instruction often terminates the litigation in that it is 'too difficult a hurdle' for the spoliating party to overcome. The court therefore concluded that the adverse inference instruction is an 'extreme' sanction that should 'not be given lightly'...".

Judge: "Assume Samsung is guilty. Feel free to be as impartial as you wish to be."
Jury: "Sweet. We'll be back in a few hours and can go home early."

The critical point in all of this is that Velvin Hogan's personal feelings were legally allowed to be part of the decision making process at that point. There is no misconduct.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?