3 ms·

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

by 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.

by bhousel 14y ago

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.