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.

[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.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by komodrone

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

Seriously?

Talk about tin foil hats.

I won't give my opinion on the merits of the case. I will say that there was quite a bit that I find questionable about the foreman and how the jury deliberated.

And if this were a criminal court case and you were the defendant - I don't believe anyone here would want a jury member who had any remote/tangential bias.

A fair trial is a fair trial. And if Samsung (or Apple!) didn't get one - they are entitled to one.

[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/

[KeyDemo]

Indeed in review the judge didn't like how it was posted but actually Apple posted nearly the full text of the order.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/01/...n-ipad-design/

[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.

[damir00]

Are you freakin' kidding me? How did this guy get through the jury selection?!

"Explaining a conceptual concept" that is material to the decision under deliberation is not the foreman's job.

This may very well end up as going to another trial. Gah.

[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.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by KeyDemo

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.

I think it's being argued (I'm not 100% sure) that his experience with patents and him having this "epiphany" on prior art based on those patents is questionable. Not only is it being argued he was wrong with his assessment but that he then "taught" the jurors this incorrect analogy.

So I believe when they say he presented evidence - it's was his "model" for determining prior art which was irrelevant to the case, etc.

Someone can definitely correct me as I am simplifying it I am sure. And from memory

[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.

[marksman]

Lol yes he should have known seagate and Samsung had a strategic partnership. Did they ask jurors if they had any connection, specifically, to any and all strategic partners of Samsung?

----------

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.

He didn't break the rules. You are one of those who don't understand how juries work.

----------

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 you think Samsung and seagate are the same company?

----------

Originally Posted by damir00

Are you freakin' kidding me? How did this guy get through the jury selection?!

"Explaining a conceptual concept" that is material to the decision under deliberation is not the foreman's job.

This may very well end up as going to another trial. Gah.

You are right it is not his job. As a member of the jury though he certainly can bring it up. Again another person who does not understand how jurys work. They are not NFL replay officials. They take the presented evidence and then discuss it with each other. There is nothing about the jury process that keeps jurors from including their own insights and experiences into the discussion. In fact that is an important part of it.

It is also why high sides and the judge can remove people during selection. If juries worked like some of you mistakenly think they would call the first twelve people and that would be that.

Unless the foreman lied during jury questioning nothing will come of this. It was partly up to the judge and mostly Samsung to ask the right questions.

Bad lawyers are bad at selecting juries. We have never seen anything to indicate Samsung has competent attornies.

----------

Originally Posted by KeyDemo

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.

It is gobsmacking that people think juries are not allowed to make arguments based on such things. This particular case has demonstrated to me that a significant percentage of people are clueless how our jury system works or what jury deliberation is.[COLOR="#808080"]

----------

Originally Posted by LoloBond

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

Yeah not going on tv is not a requirement of being a juror. Again unless he actually lied there is nothing here. The judge is covering their bases for appeal so they are not overturned. People think that there are some strict rules for jury deliberation are simply wrong.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by marksman

Lol
As for the judge wanting everything apple knew about the foreman that is weird. As far as I know you are not required to disclose information about jurors during jury selection.

Again if he did not actually lie there is nothing here but poor lawyering by Samsung.

You're the expert on everything is seems. Publishing. Patents. Law. Jury selection. Verdicts. etc. There doesn't seem to be a topic you don't try and school others on.

Fact is - it's just your opinion. No better or worse than anyone else's. Quite condescending however.

[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.

[iGrip]

Whether he conducted himself improperly or not, Samsung is still 100% guilty of ripping off Apple. And besides, he didn't do noting wrong anyways.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Whether he conducted himself improperly or not, Samsung is still 100% guilty of ripping off Apple. And besides, he didn't do noting wrong anyways.

In your opinion. But that hardly matters as it's up to the courts.

[Peppa]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Seriously?

Talk about tin foil hats.

I won't give my opinion on the merits of the case. I will say that there was quite a bit that I find questionable about the foreman and how the jury deliberated.

And if this were a criminal court case and you were the defendant - I don't believe anyone here would want a jury member who had any remote/tangential bias.

A fair trial is a fair trial. And if Samsung (or Apple!) didn't get one - they are entitled to one.

I agree...I read somewhere that the juror had had previous headaches with patenting and the patent office. The other jurors took his words as expertise and so he may have influenced the jury one way or another based on information outside the courtroom. That would not be right.

Whether there is foul play or not, it's worth looking into...which is what the judge is doing. So, good.

[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.