5 ms·

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

63 points by divy 14y ago

bhousel 14y ago
Couldn'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"?
- jbri 14y ago
  > 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.
- tjdetwiler 14y ago
  The article says "with the judge asking the questions", so Samsung wasn't asking the questions.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  "Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification?" No, jury nullification depends in a large part with the constitutional double indemnity clause. Basically if you are acquitted (found not guilty by a jury) you cannot be re-tried on that crime even if additional evidence comes up that points to you. So a jury 'nullifies' a law by acquitting you even if you were guilty, it prevents the law from punishing you for your acts. If the jury gets it wrong and convicts you, then you can appeal for a new trial and try again.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  The "nullification" in jury nullification refer to the jury nullifying a law because it's unjust or unfair, not to the judge nullifying the jury for not following the rules.
- t314159 14y ago
  Look at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170 > Samsung was also treated unequally: Apple's lay and expert witnesses were allowed to testify "we were ripped off" and "Samsung copied" (RT 509:11-510:22; 659:2-664:19; 1957:15-21; 1960:15-1963:1), while Samsung's witnesses were barred from explaining how Samsung's products differ from Apple's (RT 850-12-851:20; 2511:9-2515:5), or even how one Samsung product differs from another (RT 948:14-950:17). Samsung was required to lay foundation for any Apple document (RT 524:15-525:19; 527:3-12), while Apple was not (RT 1525:12-1526:7; 1406:11-1410:8; 1844:16-1845:8; 987:21-988:20; 2832:6-12). Apple was permitted to play advertisements (RT 641:6-642:16; 645:14-646:7), but Samsung was not (Dkt 1511). And Apple had free rein to cross-examine Samsung's experts based on their depositions, but Samsung did not. RT 1085:6-11; 1188:9-15; 1213:17-1220:5. In the interests of justice, Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial enabling adequate time and evenhanded treatment of the parties.
  - taligent 14y ago
    Samsung was barred from explaining how the F700 was different from the iPhone because they didn't submit the request in time. It is as simple as that.
twoodfin 14y ago
I 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.
- jbri 14y ago
  Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior experience" is over that line, no?
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    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.
    - KirinDave 14y ago
      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.
at-fates-hands 14y ago
Not sure about patent cases, but in criminal law, attorneys have the opportunity to challenge jurors and have them removed. If I Was a Samsung attorney, the people Grok just pointed out would be at the top of my list to have excused from the trial based on their previous litigation experience and bias.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  Which they already did to a few jury candidates. Both sides only get a few chances to do that, they can't remove everyone they want to.
blacklooksgreat 14y ago
It's called Jury Nullification, kids. By the way, I think Hogan said he was able, not that he would.
- hesitz 14y ago
  Not sure, but I think jury nullification may apply only in criminal cases, essentially because of guarantee that defendant can't be tried more than once for same crime. With obvious misapplication of law by jury in a civil case I don't believe there's anything to prevent correction of the error.
  - ars 14y ago
    No, it applies in civil cases, but the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict (so it's not as powerful).
    - danielweber 14y ago
      the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict That's not jury nullification.
sbuk 14y ago
Does this really change anything? Do you not think that a reasonable jury would come to similar conclusions? I'd call this clutching at straws TBH. I'm not convinced that all of Apple's claims hold water at all, but some do have merit, however ridiculous anyone seems to think design patents are. Painting Samsung as an innocent party and blindly ignoring what is in front of your eyes is wilful to say the least. Add Samsung's rather dubious attempts to extract unreasonable terms on FRAND licenses which it seems had already been licensed, it's hard to see them winning a re-trial. If they do, this whole affair would give reasonable grounds for Apple to appeal any decision anyway. Groklaw seems to be playing to peanut gallery here; there is little objectivity and way too much partisanship to consider any of the articles published there sound, or anywhere else for that matter, but a paralegal has no excuse IMHO.
- scott_w 14y ago
  I'm not sure it is wishful thinking. Pam does point out that the chances of this changing the outcome are slim.

63 points by divy 14y ago

Couldn'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"?

jbri 14y ago
> 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.
tjdetwiler 14y ago
The article says "with the judge asking the questions", so Samsung wasn't asking the questions.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
"Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification?" No, jury nullification depends in a large part with the constitutional double indemnity clause. Basically if you are acquitted (found not guilty by a jury) you cannot be re-tried on that crime even if additional evidence comes up that points to you. So a jury 'nullifies' a law by acquitting you even if you were guilty, it prevents the law from punishing you for your acts. If the jury gets it wrong and convicts you, then you can appeal for a new trial and try again.
cooldeal 14y ago
The "nullification" in jury nullification refer to the jury nullifying a law because it's unjust or unfair, not to the judge nullifying the jury for not following the rules.
t314159 14y ago
Look at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170 > Samsung was also treated unequally: Apple's lay and expert witnesses were allowed to testify "we were ripped off" and "Samsung copied" (RT 509:11-510:22; 659:2-664:19; 1957:15-21; 1960:15-1963:1), while Samsung's witnesses were barred from explaining how Samsung's products differ from Apple's (RT 850-12-851:20; 2511:9-2515:5), or even how one Samsung product differs from another (RT 948:14-950:17). Samsung was required to lay foundation for any Apple document (RT 524:15-525:19; 527:3-12), while Apple was not (RT 1525:12-1526:7; 1406:11-1410:8; 1844:16-1845:8; 987:21-988:20; 2832:6-12). Apple was permitted to play advertisements (RT 641:6-642:16; 645:14-646:7), but Samsung was not (Dkt 1511). And Apple had free rein to cross-examine Samsung's experts based on their depositions, but Samsung did not. RT 1085:6-11; 1188:9-15; 1213:17-1220:5. In the interests of justice, Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial enabling adequate time and evenhanded treatment of the parties.
- taligent 14y ago
  Samsung was barred from explaining how the F700 was different from the iPhone because they didn't submit the request in time. It is as simple as that.

twoodfin 14y ago

I 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.

jbri 14y ago
Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior experience" is over that line, no?
- twoodfin 14y ago
  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.
  - KirinDave 14y ago
    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.

at-fates-hands 14y ago

Not sure about patent cases, but in criminal law, attorneys have the opportunity to challenge jurors and have them removed. If I Was a Samsung attorney, the people Grok just pointed out would be at the top of my list to have excused from the trial based on their previous litigation experience and bias.

cooldeal 14y ago
Which they already did to a few jury candidates. Both sides only get a few chances to do that, they can't remove everyone they want to.

blacklooksgreat 14y ago

It's called Jury Nullification, kids. By the way, I think Hogan said he was able, not that he would.

hesitz 14y ago
Not sure, but I think jury nullification may apply only in criminal cases, essentially because of guarantee that defendant can't be tried more than once for same crime. With obvious misapplication of law by jury in a civil case I don't believe there's anything to prevent correction of the error.
- ars 14y ago
  No, it applies in civil cases, but the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict (so it's not as powerful).
  - danielweber 14y ago
    the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict That's not jury nullification.

sbuk 14y ago

Does this really change anything? Do you not think that a reasonable jury would come to similar conclusions? I'd call this clutching at straws TBH. I'm not convinced that all of Apple's claims hold water at all, but some do have merit, however ridiculous anyone seems to think design patents are. Painting Samsung as an innocent party and blindly ignoring what is in front of your eyes is wilful to say the least. Add Samsung's rather dubious attempts to extract unreasonable terms on FRAND licenses which it seems had already been licensed, it's hard to see them winning a re-trial. If they do, this whole affair would give reasonable grounds for Apple to appeal any decision anyway. Groklaw seems to be playing to peanut gallery here; there is little objectivity and way too much partisanship to consider any of the articles published there sound, or anywhere else for that matter, but a paralegal has no excuse IMHO.

scott_w 14y ago
I'm not sure it is wishful thinking. Pam does point out that the chances of this changing the outcome are slim.