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

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.

Comments

Re:I think for lying during selection

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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

[erroneus]

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:He didn't disclose what he wasn't asked

[RelliK]

"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.