Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial

[MacRumors]

CNET is reporting that Judge Lucy Koh will "consider the questions" of whether the jury foreman in the Apple v. Samsung case conducted himself improperly during the jury selection process.

Jury foreman Velvin Hogan has been one of the more visible members of the jury, speaking with numerous media agencies about the case and the billion-dollar verdict awarded in the case.

Koh said she will look into the matter during a December 6 hearing. As part of her inquiry, Koh said she will require Apple to disclose what information the company's lawyers knew about the jury foreman.

[...]

Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan didn't disclose during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate, his former employer. Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Samsung maintains Hogan should have informed the court about the case.

Though the jury trial was finished earlier this year, Apple and Samsung's courtroom drama does not look to be abating any time soon.

Article Link: Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial

[JS82712]

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.

[drwam]

The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. Am I missing something other than Samsung's desperation.

[Saladinos]

Originally Posted by drwam

The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. Am I missing something other than Samsung's desperation.

Not to mention the fact that he was asked about any litigation over the last 10 years and answered truthfully.

1993 was nearly 20 years ago. Nearly twice that time limit.

[benthewraith]

Originally Posted by Saladinos

Not to mention the fact that he was asked about any litigation over the last 10 years and answered truthfully.

1993 was nearly 20 years ago. Nearly twice that time limit.

No matter what leadership changes occur, being sued into bankruptcy isn't something you forget, particularly if you get a chance to rake that same company over years later.

[thasan]

Originally Posted by benthewraith

No matter what leadership changes occur, being sued into bankruptcy isn't something you forget, particularly if you get a chance to rake that same company over years later.

so? whats ur point? that he voluntarily say something that is not asked or considered according to the legal procedures?

[macsmurf]

Originally Posted by Saladinos

Not to mention the fact that he was asked about any litigation over the last 10 years and answered truthfully.

1993 was nearly 20 years ago. Nearly twice that time limit.

You are not telling the truth.

"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?"

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....21002201632770

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by macsmurf

You are not telling the truth.

"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?"

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....21002201632770

He was indeed telling the truth. As a part of his jury instructions he was required to tell of any litigation he was a part of within the last 10 years. So any court cases hes ever been involved in within the last 10 years would apply.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by macsmurf

You are not telling the truth.

"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?"

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....21002201632770

To which he answered truthfully "yes". He was in some court case ten years ago and said "yes". Apparently he was not asked then for a list of all court cases he was involved in.

By the way, two years ago you might have taken stuff from groklaw as "impartial". Today, you can't. According to them, everything that Apple is doing is to destroy open source software somehow. Because Google, and by extension Samsung, is the defender of open source. Don't ask, I don't understand it either.

[RobertoCravallo]

Originally Posted by macsmurf

You are not telling the truth.

"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?"

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....21002201632770

Someone quoting an actuall fact!! Wow, I am deeply impressed!!

Seems like most of the post here are just plain hearsay!

[macfacts]

Originally Posted by Saladinos

Not to mention the fact that he was asked about any litigation over the last 10 years and answered truthfully.

1993 was nearly 20 years ago. Nearly twice that time limit.

"in the last 10 years" ... do you know who said that? The jury foreman in question. He was the one that said 10 years, not the lawyers, not the judge. There have been multiple news stories that mentioned this and those reporters even went to the source (the trial transcripts) and there is no mention of a "10 years"

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by drwam

The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. .

Would Hogan have cause to know about this partnership. If no, then asking the question of 'have you ever been involved in business dealings or any legal act switch either party to this case or a company either party does business with' would iffy since Hogan might say no simply because he'd have no clear way of having the details to say yes. If they didn't follow up asking about any legal actions and with whom that's their fault

----------

Originally Posted by benthewraith

. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury.

That question hasn't been broached yet. Samsung is likely saving it, if they can even use it, for a second appeal if this one fails.

At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.

Thats what Samsung is trying to argue. Via saying that Hogan willfully his information from them, implying that he did so to get on the jury just to screw Samsung by insuring they were wrongly found guilty, thus getting back at Seagate by association.

----------

Originally Posted by KeyDemo

Please site your evidence of the contention that the foreman brought in outside evidence.

Anything not said in the courtroom or contained in documents submitted in the courtroom is outside evidence. including past experience.

Hogan may have screwed this case by talking to the public where he said he used his past knowledge of patents etc from his own case to educate the jury.

That said, even if that question ever come up and this is tossed and Samsung gets a second trial and is more careful with jury selection, they could still lose again. It's no promise.

[benthewraith]

Originally Posted by JS82712

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.

That would not be a wise business decision on Samsung's part and the fact you think they should give it up is a good enough reason why you should never be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.

Originally Posted by drwam

The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. Am I missing something other than Samsung's desperation.

Seagate is partially owned by Samsung. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury. At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.

[seven2k7]

stock is lowering......shake up in the ranks...now this decision will be thrown out cause Hogan liked talking. Karma is a bitch apple!

[LoloBond]

Since this guy went on National television I said this will bite Apple in the ass... just watch..

[komodrone]

samsung -> hire outsider -> outsider contacts foreman -> give him 10 mil to say he did his own research outside the case.

[coder12]

Originally Posted by seven2k7

stock is lowering......shake up in the ranks...now this decision will be thrown out cause Hogan liked talking. Karma is a bitch apple!

Everybody's stocks have been lowering lately (have you looked at Google's and Amazon's?) so I'd doubt this lawsuit and everything else that has been going on lately is what's affecting Apple.

[KeyDemo]

Originally Posted by benthewraith

That would not be a wise business decision on Samsung's part and the fact you think they should give it up is a good enough reason why you should never be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.



Seagate is partially owned by Samsung. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury. At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.

Please site your evidence of the contention that the foreman brought in outside evidence. That is not presented in his interview or this article. And with regard to your employment advice to the previous poster's comment, it appears that you might want to avoid the legal field yourself.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by KeyDemo

Please site your evidence of the contention that the foreman brought in outside evidence. That is not presented in his interview or this article. And with regard to your employment advice to the previous poster's comment, it appears that you might want to avoid the legal field yourself.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...w-apple-trial/

[pdjudd]

Originally Posted by samcraig

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...w-apple-trial/

The quote:

"You're looking for material or something else coming in that wasn't introduced at trial, a juror reading reports about the case and they're being influenced by outside forces."

Doesn't mean that they have any evidence. It's something that they are looking for, but they aren't accusing Hagen specifically. They are saying "this is the stuff we are looking for since this would defiantly prompt a mistrial.

It's not proof of anything at all.

[KeyDemo]

Originally Posted by samcraig

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...w-apple-trial/

Thank you. However, it appears the contention that the foreman presented "evidence" outside of that presented in the case is being misinterpreted. The foreman appears to have explained a conceptual thought, not present evidence. Evidence is fact based, concept is abstract based and subjective.

[KdParker]

Originally Posted by samcraig

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...w-apple-trial/

well that really looks like a stretch to get a new trial calling that jury tampering.

[flameproof]

Originally Posted by benthewraith

Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.

It's what I thought too. It will make Apple look really bad. And it's not about $1.1b case against Samsung, that won't stand in a patent court anyway and is most likely to be revoked in the next sequel - which will come, and which will be by an export court and not be a jury trial.

One point that people seems to miss often, Apple litigates a lot, but they are really unsuccessful with it from their track record.

[clibinarius]

Originally Posted by JS82712

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.

Them and every other court in the world and millions of Samsung costumers...etc.

[flameproof]

Originally Posted by clibinarius

Them and every other court in the world ....

Apple loosing most cases though.