Huh? The jury isn't sequestered but was given a directive to avoid media regarding this case. The defendant intentionally put out "evidence" that was thrown out of the case. That would be considered attempted jury tampering and possible contempt of court. That has nada to do with the jury already being "corrupt."
Most of the details had already been published, by the Verge for one, as early as Sunday night/Monday morning, at least a day before Judge Koh dismissed the Sony-inspired evidence package. I don't think it was a very bright move by Samsung yesterday, but the facts were already public knowledge before the ruling was finalized. Even AI had an article up about it on Monday. I don't think Tuesday's release of related slides by Sammy added much if anything.
Thats just bullshit from Samsung lawyers. They were given access to Apple employees and confidential material for the purpose of the trial. They are not meant to be used as for PR.
The First Amendment rightly adds public discourse to round out public knowledge. It makes truth relative to its citizen-bearer' ...and builds up democratic principles.
In that sense, Samsung plays par for the course. Of course, destroyed evidence cannot, from sheer tautological consistency, add on to public knowledge. The judge's relative leniency towards Samsung's admitted foul play in that regard lays the groundwork for a mistrial based on inconsistent respect for the First Amendment.
How can a judge impose upon the parties full disclosure of what is admissible within the public hearings, when she herself bends her very own rule in letting one of the party, the defendant, make, in deeds, a public mockery of full public exposure in willingly destroying crucial admissible elements. And getting away with it with a simple deference to the jury's easily distracted, overstretched, and eventually overloaded scrutiny.
This judge's allegiance is clearly swaying from 'Motherland' to 'Homeland' in a macabre pas-de-deux that spells doom for any prospect of a fair and enlightened trial. Muddy waters are breeding grounds for parasites and leeches. Whose home field advantage might that be?
I'm not aware of the destruction of evidence. I must have missed that scoop. Do you per chance have any sources that I may avail myself regarding that? I have heard of Samsung destroy evidence in other trials, but am I to understand they did it again here?
First, I didn't say nothing that Samsung does can interfere with the jury. You are equivocating. If Samsung presented the evidence to the jury, directly, in the court, it would clearly be tampering with the jury in a way that the jury could not ignore, and therefore that would be a blatant case of an attempt to prevent the jury from doing its duty. However, given the fact that the jury is not allowed to look at the media coverage, anything Samsung does in that domain is not something the jury should be aware of. There are clear asymmetrical relations here. That's something many of you do not seem to get.
Second, as for having less of me implying I'm engaged in rational debate, please tell me how quibbling over minor errors that have since been corrected, how informing me that I'm being ignored, comparing me to Perry Mason, etc. contributes to the conversation? Look it's pretty simply. So far as I'm aware, the forum rules allow me to respond to anyone who engages or addresses me. Until the moderators inform me that I'm doing something inappropriate, I will have, so much as possible, the courtesy to respond to people who address me.
You're understanding of jury tampering seems to be pretty limited. The problem with this is if the "evidence" is/was picked up by the media and they run a huge graphic in the newspaper, a news anchor leads with the press release title, etc., the jury members may not be actively seeking out the media coverage but ends up exposed to it anyway since they are not sequestered.
Most of the details had already been published, by the Verge for one, as early as Sunday night/Monday morning, at least a day before Judge Koh dismissed the Sony-inspired evidence package. I don't think it was a very bright move by Samsung yesterday, but the facts were already public knowledge before the ruling.
Yep, as Quinn noted in his declaration all the same info was already published in most major news outlets, including the New York Times, the LA Times, Cnet, etc. The only thing Samsung added with this fiasco was their claiming the evidence would completely exonerate them, which frankly is preposterous.
Most of the details had already been published, by the Verge for one, as early as Sunday night/Monday morning, at least a day before Judge Koh dismissed the Sony-inspired evidence package. I don't think it was a very bright move by Samsung yesterday, but the facts were already public knowledge before the ruling.
The decision whether to include evidence in a case isn't made in a day. There is much discussion and negotiation with the judge for quite a few days. Clearly none of us what was exactly said in chambers but based on how perturbed the Judge was, I am confident that Samsung's legal team was instructed not to publicize this information until a decision was made.
You're understanding of jury tampering seems to be pretty limited. The problem with this is if the "evidence" is/was picked up by the media and they run a huge graphic in the newspaper, a news anchor leads with the press release title, etc., the jury members may not be actively seeking out the media coverage but ends up exposed to it anyway since they are not sequestered.
Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.
I also just read that Samsung's disallowed evidence was not presented during Discovery. This was the reason the judge did not allow it. That's civil trial 101.
Maybe it's possible that Samsung forgot about the F700.... but it seems more likely that Samsung tried to sneak it in so that Apple would not have time to respond.
Yep. Even with high school level education on the court system I was aware of this. What's Samsung's lawyer's excuse?
Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.
Actually "spitting in the court's face" is illegal (at the discretion of the judge) since it is considered contempt of court.
Can you explain to me how the jury can become "polluted" given the fact they are supposed to be ignore the media coverage pertaining to this case? I don't see how a jury can be polluted unless it is not abiding by its duty.
That's quite a naive question. Ever been on a jury? I have and it's not like living in a cone of silence. Our case was dismissed because a juror admitted to reading press coverage regarding the defendant.
The decision whether to include evidence in a case isn't made in a day. There is much discussion and negotiation with the judge for quite a few days. Clearly none of us what was exactly said in chambers but based on how perturbed the Judge was, I am confident that Samsung's legal team was instructed not to publicize this information until a decision was made.
In an even earlier Verge article that dates back to the 26th of July (I missed this one), the editors attribute the Sony-inspiration find to official court filings. I don't think those were leaked by Samsung based on that article, where TheVerge linked to the publicly available court document where it was discussed. If Judge Koh didn't want it public until she had made a final decision on admissability, she should have kept that doc sealed, or minimally redacted IMHO.
Samsung is wrong. The judge excluded the evidence from being presented to the media because the judge decided the evidence was prejudical to Apple and if it makes its way to the jury, Apple would be injured. It is nonsense to argue that because the jury has already been picked, Apple can't be harmed. Juries are exposed to media even when the Court tries to prevent that. The media doesn't present evidence in a non-biased way. Samsung is trying to taint the jury and sway public opinion for future trials. It might have even been angling for a mistrial to buy it more time.
As a trial lawyer for 45 years can IMHO opine this was an attempt to have
Communication with jurors, families, friends of jurors etc.
Called a an" ex parte communication"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
First, I didn't say nothing that Samsung does can interfere with the jury. You are equivocating. If Samsung presented the evidence to the jury, directly, in the court, it would clearly be tampering with the jury in a way that the jury could not ignore, and therefore that would be a blatant case of an attempt to prevent the jury from doing its duty. However, given the fact that the jury is not allowed to look at the media coverage, anything Samsung does in that domain is not something the jury should be aware of. There are clear asymmetrical relations here. That's something many of you do not seem to get.
That's quite a naive question. Ever been on a jury? I have and it's not like living in a cone of silence. Our case was dismissed because a juror admitted to reading press coverage regarding the defendant.
Agreed, juries get to go out to eat, where inevitably they can't help but to see papers or TV. They talk to family. When the case is on for days, they generally go home. If jurors are put in a hotel, there are TVs in the room. It is very naive to think jurors can shield themselves from media when media is everywhere. Samsung is trying to taint the jury.
Yes, I did miss that. That looks like it might be sufficient leverage for judge Koh to impose sanctions no? Although, as the lawyer posted, Samsung's lawyer might have enough wiggle room given the fact that all the information was already public.
Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.
Sure something is new, it is being reported in every media outlet while the jury is sitting.
Ok wrong expression then. Expressing strong dissent.
I didn't literally mean "spitting in the court's face" and I didn't think you did either. "Expressing strong dissent" that goes directly against a judge's direction can still be considered contempt of court.
Agreed, juries get to go out to eat, where inevitably they can't help but to see papers or TV. They talk to family. When the case is on for days, they generally go home. If jurors are put in a hotel, there are TVs in the room. It is very naive to think jurors can shield themselves from media when media is everywhere. Samsung is trying to taint the jury.
That's part of the risk involved in holding a trial open to the public. Did Samsung leak anything new evidence? Nope. Did they share their opinion they didn't like the fact some evidence was excluded? Yep. Did the jury already know that? I think so, weren't they present when Koh told them to shut up about it?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh
Huh? The jury isn't sequestered but was given a directive to avoid media regarding this case. The defendant intentionally put out "evidence" that was thrown out of the case. That would be considered attempted jury tampering and possible contempt of court. That has nada to do with the jury already being "corrupt."
Most of the details had already been published, by the Verge for one, as early as Sunday night/Monday morning, at least a day before Judge Koh dismissed the Sony-inspired evidence package. I don't think it was a very bright move by Samsung yesterday, but the facts were already public knowledge before the ruling was finalized. Even AI had an article up about it on Monday. I don't think Tuesday's release of related slides by Sammy added much if anything.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/30/3201162/apple-refutes-claim-they-cribbed-notes-from-sony-reveal-prototype
Thats just bullshit from Samsung lawyers. They were given access to Apple employees and confidential material for the purpose of the trial. They are not meant to be used as for PR.
I'm not aware of the destruction of evidence. I must have missed that scoop. Do you per chance have any sources that I may avail myself regarding that? I have heard of Samsung destroy evidence in other trials, but am I to understand they did it again here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
First, I didn't say nothing that Samsung does can interfere with the jury. You are equivocating. If Samsung presented the evidence to the jury, directly, in the court, it would clearly be tampering with the jury in a way that the jury could not ignore, and therefore that would be a blatant case of an attempt to prevent the jury from doing its duty. However, given the fact that the jury is not allowed to look at the media coverage, anything Samsung does in that domain is not something the jury should be aware of. There are clear asymmetrical relations here. That's something many of you do not seem to get.
Second, as for having less of me implying I'm engaged in rational debate, please tell me how quibbling over minor errors that have since been corrected, how informing me that I'm being ignored, comparing me to Perry Mason, etc. contributes to the conversation? Look it's pretty simply. So far as I'm aware, the forum rules allow me to respond to anyone who engages or addresses me. Until the moderators inform me that I'm doing something inappropriate, I will have, so much as possible, the courtesy to respond to people who address me.
You're understanding of jury tampering seems to be pretty limited. The problem with this is if the "evidence" is/was picked up by the media and they run a huge graphic in the newspaper, a news anchor leads with the press release title, etc., the jury members may not be actively seeking out the media coverage but ends up exposed to it anyway since they are not sequestered.
Yep, as Quinn noted in his declaration all the same info was already published in most major news outlets, including the New York Times, the LA Times, Cnet, etc. The only thing Samsung added with this fiasco was their claiming the evidence would completely exonerate them, which frankly is preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Most of the details had already been published, by the Verge for one, as early as Sunday night/Monday morning, at least a day before Judge Koh dismissed the Sony-inspired evidence package. I don't think it was a very bright move by Samsung yesterday, but the facts were already public knowledge before the ruling.
The decision whether to include evidence in a case isn't made in a day. There is much discussion and negotiation with the judge for quite a few days. Clearly none of us what was exactly said in chambers but based on how perturbed the Judge was, I am confident that Samsung's legal team was instructed not to publicize this information until a decision was made.
Samsung became judge and jury as to whats right & wrong, Shame on the judiciary system for letting them get away with that.
Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr
EDIT:
I also just read that Samsung's disallowed evidence was not presented during Discovery. This was the reason the judge did not allow it. That's civil trial 101.
Maybe it's possible that Samsung forgot about the F700.... but it seems more likely that Samsung tried to sneak it in so that Apple would not have time to respond.
Yep. Even with high school level education on the court system I was aware of this. What's Samsung's lawyer's excuse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.
Actually "spitting in the court's face" is illegal (at the discretion of the judge) since it is considered contempt of court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Can you explain to me how the jury can become "polluted" given the fact they are supposed to be ignore the media coverage pertaining to this case? I don't see how a jury can be polluted unless it is not abiding by its duty.
That's quite a naive question. Ever been on a jury? I have and it's not like living in a cone of silence. Our case was dismissed because a juror admitted to reading press coverage regarding the defendant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh
The decision whether to include evidence in a case isn't made in a day. There is much discussion and negotiation with the judge for quite a few days. Clearly none of us what was exactly said in chambers but based on how perturbed the Judge was, I am confident that Samsung's legal team was instructed not to publicize this information until a decision was made.
In an even earlier Verge article that dates back to the 26th of July (I missed this one), the editors attribute the Sony-inspiration find to official court filings. I don't think those were leaked by Samsung based on that article, where TheVerge linked to the publicly available court document where it was discussed. If Judge Koh didn't want it public until she had made a final decision on admissability, she should have kept that doc sealed, or minimally redacted IMHO.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3189309/apple-sony-iphone-design-inspiration-iphone-4-looked-old
Samsung is wrong. The judge excluded the evidence from being presented to the media because the judge decided the evidence was prejudical to Apple and if it makes its way to the jury, Apple would be injured. It is nonsense to argue that because the jury has already been picked, Apple can't be harmed. Juries are exposed to media even when the Court tries to prevent that. The media doesn't present evidence in a non-biased way. Samsung is trying to taint the jury and sway public opinion for future trials. It might have even been angling for a mistrial to buy it more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caseevaluator
As a trial lawyer for 45 years can IMHO opine this was an attempt to have
Communication with jurors, families, friends of jurors etc.
Called a an" ex parte communication"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
First, I didn't say nothing that Samsung does can interfere with the jury. You are equivocating. If Samsung presented the evidence to the jury, directly, in the court, it would clearly be tampering with the jury in a way that the jury could not ignore, and therefore that would be a blatant case of an attempt to prevent the jury from doing its duty. However, given the fact that the jury is not allowed to look at the media coverage, anything Samsung does in that domain is not something the jury should be aware of. There are clear asymmetrical relations here. That's something many of you do not seem to get.
I think you missed the memo.
Ok wrong expression then. Expressing strong dissent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
That's quite a naive question. Ever been on a jury? I have and it's not like living in a cone of silence. Our case was dismissed because a juror admitted to reading press coverage regarding the defendant.
Agreed, juries get to go out to eat, where inevitably they can't help but to see papers or TV. They talk to family. When the case is on for days, they generally go home. If jurors are put in a hotel, there are TVs in the room. It is very naive to think jurors can shield themselves from media when media is everywhere. Samsung is trying to taint the jury.
Yes, I did miss that. That looks like it might be sufficient leverage for judge Koh to impose sanctions no? Although, as the lawyer posted, Samsung's lawyer might have enough wiggle room given the fact that all the information was already public.
Anyway, thanks for calling my attention to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.
Sure something is new, it is being reported in every media outlet while the jury is sitting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Ok wrong expression then. Expressing strong dissent.
I didn't literally mean "spitting in the court's face" and I didn't think you did either. "Expressing strong dissent" that goes directly against a judge's direction can still be considered contempt of court.
That's part of the risk involved in holding a trial open to the public. Did Samsung leak anything new evidence? Nope. Did they share their opinion they didn't like the fact some evidence was excluded? Yep. Did the jury already know that? I think so, weren't they present when Koh told them to shut up about it?