Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#2Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification? IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise.
Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions and getting an unfavorable jury"?
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#3Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification? IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise. Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions and getting an unfavorable jury"?
> IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise.
> Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions
If you take the position that a juror is allowed to lie their way through the selection process, also saying that it's the defendant's fault for not getting them rejected seems a little odd.
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#4Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification? IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise. Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions and getting an unfavorable jury"?
The article says "with the judge asking the questions", so Samsung wasn't asking the questions.
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#5I don't get it. Why is it some kind of revelation that prospective jurors said they wouldn't let their previous experience with related issues influence their decision in the case? Isn't that bog standard voir dire stuff?
ISTM that the legal system can't expect jurors to be blank slates on every issue, that's just impractical. A judgement would really be thrown out because a juror later commented that his foreman's experience with the patent system was useful during deliberations? Was the foreman supposed to forget he'd ever filed for a patent? That's a little like saying jurors deliberating over a hit-and-run can't discuss their own driving experience. IANAL, but surely the line you can't cross is a little further out.
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#6I don't get it. Why is it some kind of revelation that prospective jurors said they wouldn't let their previous experience with related issues influence their decision in the case? Isn't that bog standard voir dire stuff? ISTM that the legal system can't expect jurors to be blank slates on every issue, that's just impractical. A judgement would really be thrown out because a juror later commented that his foreman's e…
Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior experience" is over that line, no?
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#7I don't get it. Why is it some kind of revelation that prospective jurors said they wouldn't let their previous experience with related issues influence their decision in the case? Isn't that bog standard voir dire stuff? ISTM that the legal system can't expect jurors to be blank slates on every issue, that's just impractical. A judgement would really be thrown out because a juror later commented that his foreman's e…
Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior experience" is over that line, no?
What's the evidence that he presented himself as an expert? He obviously knew more about patents than some of the other jurors, so he was better able to explain some of the material presented during the trial. Would it have been better if he'd just stayed silent and left them confused?
I can imagine what crossing a bright line would look like. Something like: "I know the judge told us X, but I'm an expert and really Y." But I don't think there's evidence that's what happened.
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#8I don't get it. Why is it some kind of revelation that prospective jurors said they wouldn't let their previous experience with related issues influence their decision in the case? Isn't that bog standard voir dire stuff? ISTM that the legal system can't expect jurors to be blank slates on every issue, that's just impractical. A judgement would really be thrown out because a juror later commented that his foreman's e…
Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior experience" is over that line, no?
Making assertions about patent law that are objectively false would surely be over that line too. Questions of law are for the judge, questions of guilt or innocence are for the jury. Isn't that the rule?
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior experience" is over that line, no?
What's the evidence that he presented himself as an expert? He obviously knew more about patents than some of the other jurors, so he was better able to explain some of the material presented during the trial. Would it have been better if he'd just stayed silent and left them confused? I can imagine what crossing a bright line would look like. Something like: "I know the judge told us X, but I'm an expert and really…
The interviews with other jurors made it clear that they deferred to his opinion in this case, the which makes it very hard for the foreman to deny what happened. Groklaw links a lot of the interviews so you can see for yourself, if you're curious.
I'm not sure why people are surprised here. It's not like the verdict against Samsung wasn't warranted and won't be upheld in subsequent cases. The problem is the juror's dismissals of other patents held by Samsung that clearly were applicable.
The only thing that makes this broken patent system remotely tolerable is a fiction of fairness. If we allow the jury to discard even this in punitive fashion, then things are worse than we realized.
P.S., sorry for the first garbled iteration of this post. I'm still dialing in SwiftKey for tablets.
Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior experience" is over that line, no?
What's the evidence that he presented himself as an expert? He obviously knew more about patents than some of the other jurors, so he was better able to explain some of the material presented during the trial. Would it have been better if he'd just stayed silent and left them confused? I can imagine what crossing a bright line would look like. Something like: "I know the judge told us X, but I'm an expert and really…
The other juror's statements make it clear that there was confusion on the jury, and instead of asking the judge (as jurors are supposed to do), they relied on the foreman's personal experiences.