Slashdot Mirror
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.
You need to get a better dentist
Say are they still worried about Mercury in fillings?
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?
I think for lying during selection Hogan should be charged with perjury and contempt of court.
Hail Mary time!!
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.
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.
May I suggest this guy?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
.. 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
This post is provided without warranty as to reliability, accuracy or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose.
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.
Oh, that's right: they believed the bollocks of this juror on a egotrip.
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!
What is this man doing here???
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.
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.
Never let a mediocre career stand in the way of a good time
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..
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?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
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.
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.
Samsung was destroying emails and manipulating the discovery process.
http://internationaledisclosure.blogspot.com/2012/09/apple-v-samsung-largest-international.html
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hey Apple! Samsung wants their $1 billion back, with interest. Oh, and until the new trial is over, you can't sell phones in the US or Asia, and you have to "cease and desist" operating any network that allows those phones to operate until the new trial is over. Payback baby, its a bitch!
And the vast majority are saying:
That isn't an argument
Yes it is
No it isn't
'Tis
'Tisn't ...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The adverse inference instruction was removed because Apple was also responsible for gaming the discovery process, and rather than having the jury instructions include an adverse inference instruction for BOTH Apple and Samsung or NONE at all, Apple's lawyer consented to none at all. In particular, Apple, as the plaintiff, should have known well before Samsung when litigation was anticipated, and yet they still didn't put a litigation hold on Steve Jobs correspondence.
The jury never found out that Apple and Samsung gamed the discovery process.
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.
True, if you are a witness or defendant in a case. Not a friggin' potential juror. Why can't people make the distinction here? This guy is was not on trial (yet).
Should have seen this coming; judging by the name, I'm pretty sure he's a Star Trek villan.
What I meant was: If corporations are persons in that they can sue and be sued, can they also be summoned to jury duty as "peers" of the litigants?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Jury nullification.
The jury is the judge of guilt.
That involves two parts. Judging the facts, and judging the law.
Please take your revisionist interpretation elsewhere.
A transcript doesn't show everything that's germane to this debate. There's also the issue of timing, as in the flow of the conversation; the cadence of the "back and forth".
It's one thing if the judge asks a question, he gives his first answer, and then she immediately moves onto the next juror. In that case, he would have to interrupt a judge sitting on the bench while she's talking. I can understand him keeping quiet; I don't think I'd have the balls to interrupt a judge in court.
It's a whole other thing if, after he describes his first lawsuit, he pauses (and pauses) without saying anything, inviting the judge to think he was done talking. It's hard to make the "he answered what was asked of him" argument when everyone is sitting there waiting for him to keep talking. In that case, you have to conclude that he has made a conscious decision to withhold the details about his Seagate lawsuit.
Unfortunately this is something that, without a video or audio feed, just can't be settled.
First, it's called a lie of omission.
Second, the judge did the questioning, not the lawyers. They get to agree to jury questions, but the judge actually asks them, as you can see from the transcript.
Third, he never answered "yes", rather he gave one example and failed to give the others. Again, please examine the transcript and note that, when he was also asked, "Anything about that experience that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?" to which he answered "I don't believe so." This, in spite of being involved in a personal bankruptcy that cost him his house due to litigation by a company owned by Samsung.
Fourth, the failure to disclose it, no matter whose fault it may be, robbed Samsung of their legal rights. As such, they should be entitled to a new trial.
You mean adverse inference, not inverse. One is a legal term, the other is... not. Adverse inference means that they assume something is being covered up. Inverse would mean that you infer the opposite. But you'd have to have evidence and the whole problem that gives rise to adverse inference is that someone has destroyed or lost relevant information for whatever reason, leaving you with no evidence. Which is why there's no such thing as "inverse inference."
M-CAM called this in August...to learn more about Velvin Hogan’s erroneous actions, check out the Patently Obvious report entitled, “In the jury of the blind, Velvin Hogan is King”: http://www.bit.ly/Ru6z6q
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 works.
The jury foreman said the judge only asked for ten years, but the transcripts (reproduced on Groklaw) clearly show that he was asked if he was ever involved in a lawsuit. The original poster wasn't trolling, but he wasn't careful reading the article either.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
> They have to prove he lied. He answered yes to a yes or no question. Truthfully.
He didn't use "yes" or "no" in that answer (in spite of your repeated assertions to the contrary, which have been proven incorrect by the official transcript). And in spite of his claims of a 10 year time limit, no evidence thereof has been found in the transcript. Rather, we have evidence that another juror mentioned a case from more than 10 years ago.
This kind of lie is called a "lie of omission." He was asked if he had "ever" been part of a case. Inexplicably leaving out a judgment that led to personal bankruptcy and the loss of his house is quite an omission.
Here's the oath for voire dire in California.
Would you like me to look up "lie of omission" for you next?
The jury is meant to be the judge of fact, not the judge of law (the judge is the judge of law).
Why is that, anyway? Facts are complex things, and difficult for a layperson to interpret: I wouldn't want anyone interpreting evidence from genetic testing without a basic education in probability, for example. But the law is supposed to be simple enough that citizens can follow it. If a jury of one's peers can't reliably interpret the meaning of the law, how can the defendant be expected to do so?
He was fired by Seagate, and his employment contract specified that they would loan him money (for moving expenses, i.e. to buy a house) but if his employment was terminated he would have to pay that money back. They sued him for that money, to enforce the contract. I don't know if he paid it or not, but he declared bankruptcy a few months afterwards.
Those two cases -- being sued by Seagate, and his personal bankruptcy -- were the two he did not mention in voir dire for Apple v. Samsung. And this was all 20ish years ago (IIRC he was hired in 1989, and fired in 1991).
He lied by omission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission
> Here's what the Samsung lawyers should've asked him after he raised his hand.
The judge does the questioning based on a list of questions both parties agree to beforehand. Samsung's lawyers weren't asking the questions. Mr. Hogan lied by omission, failing to mention the other, more relevant cases. Then lied about his reasons for doing that in a media interview (there was no "10 year" cutoff), proving that he both remembered and withheld that information deliberately.
Was he also an apple fan boy?
OK