New Drama: Samsung's Appeal Claims Verdict was Tainted By Jury Foreman's Misconduct

[dgstorm]

It looks like there is even more drama in the Samsung vs. Apple appeal than we originally realized. By now you have probably read our earlier reports that Samsung is trying to get the verdict overturned in their $1 Billion U.S. case that they lost against Apple. One of the things they cited as a reason was that they jury didn't fulfill their duty properly. However, their complaint goes even deeper than that and their own investigation reveals some disturbing facts regarding the case. Samsung is now claiming that Jury Foreman Velvin Hogan tainted the verdict with misconduct, and they are even implying that it might have been intentional. Here's a quote with the full skinny on this developing drama,

In a request to dismiss the verdict, Samsung says that jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose his bankruptcy filing in 1993, and the fact that he was sued by hard drive-maker Seagate, his former employer.

It may sound far-fetched initially, but here’s where the bias might come from. Samsung says it has a “substantial strategic relationship” with Seagate. Meanwhile, the lawyer who sued Hogan is married to one of the lawyers who represented Samsung in the Apple vs. Samsung trial. As such, Samsung says Mr. Hogan, as foreman, may have been influenced by these relationships in leading the jury to decide against the defendant.

“Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore,” said the company in a statement, suggesting that Hogan may have not been very truthful in answering court questions in order to “secure a seat on the jury.”

Of course, there are two sides to every story, and here is a quote with what Mr. Hogan had to say in response to these allegations,

In an interview with Bloomberg, though, Hogan downplayed the accusations, saying that the court only requires potential jurors to disclose litigation in the past 10 years, saying that the bankruptcy case and Seagate litigation fell outside of this time period. Mr. Hogan was chosen as the jury foreman partly on the basis of his prior experience with patents, having obtained his own patent on “video compression software” for a hobby of his.

Hogan likewise wonders whether Samsung allowed him on the jury “just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favor.” He said he agreed to take part in jury duty and even “took it as an honor” due to the lawsuit’s relevance to his being an electrical engineer, his profession for the past four decades.

It's also worth noting that Mr. Hogan was voted to be the jury foreman by a unanimous vote, except for one, his own. Are these allegations of misconduct viable, or is Samsung just reaching? Personally, I doubt this "drama" really is relevant, and I think it's moot. Ultimately, the jury didn't follow the instructions properly, and that is why the case should be overturned. What do you think?

Source: AndroidAuthority

 

[94lt1]

Interesting points from Samsung... but I think all they need to do is look at the judges conduct...

you can't play favorites in a court room..

If people didn't sign an agreement and take money, all of judge Judy's rulings would be thrown out...this judge sure seemed to conduct themselves in that manner...IMHO..

Just my opinion...

 

[johnomaz]

I think it was his knowledge of the patent system, or should I say made up knowledge, that screwed it up. making your own definitions and not following the laid out rules by the judge should be enough.

 

[Chocula78]

I'd say that history is pretty damn relevant, regardless of the 10 year cap. He has a reason to possess a personal vendetta against Samsung. It's like having that fat kid you made fun of in elementary school being the foreman at your trial for some crime you are charged with.

And yes, the way the jury operated was outside of the instructions they were given.

 

[jseah]

According to the transcript of the jury questionnaire, the question posed to the jurors were whether they were ever involved in litigation, not whether they were involved within the last 10 years.

 

[pdroid]

According to the transcript of the jury questionnaire, the question posed to the jurors were whether they were ever involved in litigation, not whether they were involved within the last 10 years.

Exactly. Hogan keeps digging himself deeper IMO.

 

[Big Ry]

Yeah, 10 years? Who cares! I hate apple now and I hated them 15 years ago! I definitely think Sammy has some solid ground to stand on...that is, if judge apple er... judge koh doesn't show bias towards apple again.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[bazar6]

I think it should be thrown out (not "overturned") ... a bias judge and foreman, and not following instructions, should be grounds to dismiss the verdict and start a new trial... I'd be screaming for another trial in a neutral location too; a court 10 miles from one sides HQ will obviously bring in potential jurors that could be negatively effected by the wrong outcome, even if they didn't personally own an Apple product.