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?
Read this article. Don't be confused by the different Judge's name, as it is the same case. Judge Grewel is a Federal Magistrate charged with taking care of some of the preliminary matters to make Federal District Judge Lucy Koh's job easier. So in this very case, the jury will be instructed that Samsung destroyed evidence.
Read this article. Don't be confused by the different Judge's name, as it is the same case. Judge Grewel is a Federal Magistrate charged with taking care of some of the preliminary matters to make Federal District Judge Lucy Koh's job easier. So in this very case, the jury will be instructed that Samsung destroyed evidence.
That was true even before Samsung answered AllthingD's emails.
No it is not. The difference is before the jury was picked, the assertion that Apple copied Sony was not a feature story picked up by all the major media outlets. Further, before the jury was picked, nobody knew who was going to be on the jury. The lawyers could screen the jurors to learn what pre-trial stories they have heard to screen out jurors who have possibly been tainted by stories. Now the jury has been picked, and the story is a featured story on every major news outlet, and you can't screen jurors out now.
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?
I do not see your point. Just because a trial is public, doesn't mean all the pretrial deliberations are public. There are thousand of documents both parties have sealed that the public doesn't get to see. Moreover, it is common practice that lawyers engaged in a trial are not allowed to share their opinion to the public when the judge deems doing so will prejudice the case. It happens everyday in hundreds of cases lawyers are told to keep quiet and not give their opinion to the public.
You also clearly don't understand how trials work. No, the jury was not present when she told the parties to shut up. The jury is typically not in the room when this type of deliberation is discussed. There is also the concept of a sidebar where the parties lawyers approach the bench to discuss a matter out of earshot of the jury.
I'm not sure how Apple asking for justifiable sanctions is contributing to this case looking like a circus. Samsung and their lawyers are doing a bang-up job of that themselves.
Don't know. Looking at the opening, I think they did good. Apple did well, too.
I do not see your point. Just because a trial is public, doesn't mean all the pretrial deliberations are public. There are thousand of documents both parties have sealed that the public doesn't get to see. Moreover, it is common practice that lawyers engaged in a trial are not allowed to share their opinion to the public when the judge deems doing so will prejudice the case. It happens everyday in hundreds of cases lawyers are told to keep quiet and not give their opinion to the public.
You also clearly don't understand how trials work. No, the jury was not present when she told the parties to shut up. The jury is typically not in the room when this type of deliberation is discussed. There is also the concept of a sidebar where the parties lawyers approach the bench to discuss a matter out of earshot of the jury.
You all keep repeating this. It makes no sense to me though and I would like a clear explanation. Let me give you an analogy. I say don't go into the room 212 with information X in it. Then someone, perhaps me, puts some information in room 212 for others to see. How can anyone who put information in to room 212 be responsible if you happen to find yourself in room 212? We told you not to go in there, so if you are in there, you did something wrong and no one else did.
Let me re-frame your metaphor. A bunch of people are locked up in rm 212. They are allowed to leave at the end of each day, but are told they are not supposed to look up information OUTSIDE of rm 212. Thanks to someone else, not only is that information everywhere outside rm 212, everyone outside rm 212 is talking about the information. Does it make better sense now?
For a while, I thought this forum's members strove for a higher level of discussion than found on most other forums, I'm starting to get the sense it's no better here than elsewhere, people are only interesting in scoring "clever" points, not actually addressing the substance of the matter.
Boo hoo hoo. Stop whining. If it's no better here, get out. Find some other forum.
I'm on Samsung's side this time. There's no reason that photo had to be excluded.
Then they should have filed it correctly.it was public knowledge so there is no excuse for them not finding it until the end of the game. But they did hold it and it was too late. They should have kept it to themselves and used it to build an appeal. Not this stunt of trying to try the case in the press
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.
You can tell them to ignore the media but in this day and age good luck. The only be sure would be to sequester them for the trial.
Did you even read the declaration? Quinn's point, repeated multiple times, was that the information was already public, so this is a non-issue. Additionally, the judge only told Samsung to exclude it from the jury, not the public. Again, the judge wanted all the trial information to remain public knowledge. Lesson/moral? You reap what you sow.
How are parts of an exclude deposition public? That deposition does not belong to Samsung, their attorneys, or the public. Quinn also lied to the Judge. In court he claimed he sent it to journalists that requested it. At least one of these journalists claim they made no request at all.
Comments
That was true even before Samsung answered AllthingD's emails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
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?
Read this article. Don't be confused by the different Judge's name, as it is the same case. Judge Grewel is a Federal Magistrate charged with taking care of some of the preliminary matters to make Federal District Judge Lucy Koh's job easier. So in this very case, the jury will be instructed that Samsung destroyed evidence.
TY
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
That was true even before Samsung answered AllthingD's emails.
No it is not. The difference is before the jury was picked, the assertion that Apple copied Sony was not a feature story picked up by all the major media outlets. Further, before the jury was picked, nobody knew who was going to be on the jury. The lawyers could screen the jurors to learn what pre-trial stories they have heard to screen out jurors who have possibly been tainted by stories. Now the jury has been picked, and the story is a featured story on every major news outlet, and you can't screen jurors out now.
I recall that those were the sort of careless mistakes that got spies caught during the cold war. Is your training showing a dent? /wink
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
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?
I do not see your point. Just because a trial is public, doesn't mean all the pretrial deliberations are public. There are thousand of documents both parties have sealed that the public doesn't get to see. Moreover, it is common practice that lawyers engaged in a trial are not allowed to share their opinion to the public when the judge deems doing so will prejudice the case. It happens everyday in hundreds of cases lawyers are told to keep quiet and not give their opinion to the public.
You also clearly don't understand how trials work. No, the jury was not present when she told the parties to shut up. The jury is typically not in the room when this type of deliberation is discussed. There is also the concept of a sidebar where the parties lawyers approach the bench to discuss a matter out of earshot of the jury.
Gasp! What a slime ball whore of a lawyer Samsung has hired to scam the jury for them.
Don't know. Looking at the opening, I think they did good. Apple did well, too.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/07/31/apple-samsung-trial-opens-with-one-juror-done-samsung-begging-live-blog/
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I'd like to see this too. Given the lawyer's declaration, I fear it would raise First Amendment issues. That might play well in the appeal courts no?
Lame.
Ok, thanks for correcting me.
I suspect it has to do with to do with the context they put around the information, rather than the information itself
Nice argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Yep. Even with high school level education on the court system I was aware of this. What's Samsung's lawyer's excuse?
If I was the person at Samsung responsible for hiring this lawyer, I'd be very nervous right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Nice argument.
It was straight to the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
You all keep repeating this. It makes no sense to me though and I would like a clear explanation. Let me give you an analogy. I say don't go into the room 212 with information X in it. Then someone, perhaps me, puts some information in room 212 for others to see. How can anyone who put information in to room 212 be responsible if you happen to find yourself in room 212? We told you not to go in there, so if you are in there, you did something wrong and no one else did.
Let me re-frame your metaphor. A bunch of people are locked up in rm 212. They are allowed to leave at the end of each day, but are told they are not supposed to look up information OUTSIDE of rm 212. Thanks to someone else, not only is that information everywhere outside rm 212, everyone outside rm 212 is talking about the information. Does it make better sense now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
For a while, I thought this forum's members strove for a higher level of discussion than found on most other forums, I'm starting to get the sense it's no better here than elsewhere, people are only interesting in scoring "clever" points, not actually addressing the substance of the matter.
Boo hoo hoo. Stop whining. If it's no better here, get out. Find some other forum.
Then they should have filed it correctly.it was public knowledge so there is no excuse for them not finding it until the end of the game. But they did hold it and it was too late. They should have kept it to themselves and used it to build an appeal. Not this stunt of trying to try the case in the press
Can anyone cite another famous case where a lawyer would publicize information that a judge has not allowed to be heard in court?
You can tell them to ignore the media but in this day and age good luck. The only be sure would be to sequester them for the trial.
How are parts of an exclude deposition public? That deposition does not belong to Samsung, their attorneys, or the public. Quinn also lied to the Judge. In court he claimed he sent it to journalists that requested it. At least one of these journalists claim they made no request at all.