Quote:
Originally Posted by holymadness
Would you please post the transcript of this juror's responses during voir-dire?
I am hearing an awful lot about not telling the truth without anything to back it up.
|
Well, PCWorld's article says:
Quote:
|
Neither party has conclusively shown whether Hogan intentionally concealed his lawsuit with Seagate, or whether he merely forgot to mention it when asked by the court whether he was ever involved in a lawsuit,
|
...and I've italicized what I believe is the relevant part. Having served on juries, you're always asked about prior litigious experience for a civil jury and criminal experience if it is a criminal trial. Always. This guy didn't just forget being a party to some other guy's lawsuit, or being a witness--he was sued by his own former employer. I don't think you "forget" that. That's bollox.
I suspect that Samsung actually still has a reasonable case to make that they had no reason to pursue the question in voir dire, as the negative answer meant that they couldn't know what they couldn't know. It would be negligent voir dire, indeed, if he had said "yes," and they didn't pursue that; but the reasonable man doesn't automatically infer that every juror who answers "no" is lying. And I think there's a reasonable case that he concealed it deliberately, all things considered. How can you "forget" that you've been sued by your employer? Or that you've been in bankruptcy court, as a bankrupt? Am I the only one (who, by the way, couldn't care less about the argument on the table about whether Android or Apple is Ruler of the World) who finds that
slightly unbelievable?
It's the District Court. I'm sure we'll hear about it again. ;-)
Hitch