4 ms·
No she didn't. What she said is that the statements Samsung used in its motion were inadmissible. She did not express any opinion on whether those statements wo
by lgg 14y ago
No she didn't. What she said is that the statements Samsung used in its motion were inadmissible. She did not express any opinion on whether those statements would have constituted jury misconduct if they were admissible.
"In sum, the integrity of the jury system and the Federal Rules of Evidence demand that the Court not consider Mr. Hogan’s post-verdict statements concerning the jury’s decision-making process. None of the cases Samsung cites suggests otherwise. Because the Court cannot consider these inadmissible statements in determining whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, there is no evidence properly before the Court to require such a hearing. Instead, the Court must apply the well established presumption that the jury followed the law."
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ars 14y agoYah I read that. But no judge uses a technicality if they can dismiss on more concrete grounds. Sounds to me like she agreed with Samsung, but the technicality forced her to go a different way.
- stock_toaster 14y agoYou may be reading your own bias into it. It came across as pretty nuetral toned to me. I am certainly not read up on many rulings though, so maybe this was unusual wording?
- eridius 14y agoWhy would any judge even bother to dismiss on the grounds that the statements were not sufficient evidence, when the statements are not even admissible? It seems to me to be a bad idea to have judges going around saying "if this evidence were admissible then it would win you the motion/case/whatever".
- taligent 14y agoars doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Admissible evidence is one of the most fundamental parts of the rule of law.
- ars 14y agoOf course it is, but because of appeals Judges will typically make an extra ruling as if the evidence was admissible (just in case the appeal finds that the evidence was in fact admissible). This way that part is settled either way.
- ars 14y agoWhich of course is why she didn't say it. A Judge will often do something like: It's wrong because of X, but even if X doesn't apply then it's still wrong because of Y. It's telling that she didn't do that here. (Unless she did and the article just doesn't mention it.) For example (from this same ruling): > U.S District Judge Lucy Koh noted that Samsung claims to have "worked around" using different technology than the Apple patents found to have been infringed such as the iPhone's popular "pinch to zoom" feature. > And even if that's a false claim, the judge ruled, Apple's demands to yank the Samsung products from U.S. shelves and bar future sales was too broad of a punishment in devices built with technology backed by hundreds of patents each. Quoted from: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-denies-apple-request-ban-samsung-phones http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-denies-apple-request-ba...
- eridius 14y agoI don't think that's analogous. In your quoted example, if the judge left it at just the "because of X", then someone could come along and say "here's why X doesn't apply", and she'd have to revisit it. But this way she's saying "even if you disprove X, my ruling stands because of Y". However, in the case of inadmissible evidence, it seems there's no risk of someone coming along and saying "but it is admissible after all", because it's pretty clear that it's not.