Samsung claims jury foreman's personal history tainted verdict

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Samsung has requested the $1 billion Apple v. Samsung trial verdict be thrown out on claims that jury foreman Velvin Hogan's failure to disclose a previous lawsuit and bankruptcy led to a biased decision.

The Korean company contends that because Hogan didn't tell presiding Judge Lucy Koh of a personal bankruptcy filing from 1993 and a suit from former employer Seagate Technology, his presence in jury deliberations may have colored the final verdict, reports Bloomberg.

Velvin Hogan
Apple v. Samsung jury foreman Velvin Hogan. | Source: bayarea.com


"Mr. Hogan's failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore," Samsung said. Also mentioned were statements Hogan made to media outlets after the verdict, which Samsung argues is a sign that he didn't answer the court?s questions ?truthfully? to ?secure a seat on the jury.?

In the filing, Samsung called its link with Seagate a "substantial strategic partnership," and noted the lawyer who filed the complaint against Hogan in 1993 is apparently married to an attorney who works for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, the law firm representing Samsung in its California case against Apple.

When Hogan spoke with Bloomberg on Monday, he denied any misconduct and noted the court's instructions for potential jurors required they disclose any prior involvement in litigation over the past ten years. He said the Seagate suit fell outside of the specified time range.

"Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would've disclosed that," Hogan said. "I'm willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would've allowed me to be excused." The jury elected Hogan foreman due in part to his experience as an electrical engineer. He claims the only dissenting vote was his own.

As for the jury selection process, Hogan said, "I answered every question the judge asked me, and Samsung "had every opportunity to question me." Hogan said.

He was also surprised to hear that Samsung didn't know of the history referred to in Tuesday's filing, given that the lawyer cited in the claim is married to another lawyer working for the firm representing the company.

Hogan said he questions if Samsung "let [him] in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn't go in their favor."
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 115
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,387member
    It just never ends with this company, does it? Think I'll sell my TV and get a different brand, just on these stories alone. They try to reverse eveything. Great going, gnusmaS.
  • Reply 2 of 115
    taniatania Posts: 63member
    Is this not libel what Samsung is doing?

    Samsung lost against a big company and now singling out this one individual?
  • Reply 3 of 115
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member


    Following the bizzare comments from the guy post-trial, this was just a matter of time.  


     


    The whole failing to provide the feedback re:lawsuit just adds a whole lot more substance to their discussion.




    He should have never been in the trial

  • Reply 4 of 115
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tania View Post



    Is this not libel what Samsung is doing?

    Samsung lost against a big company and now singling out this one individual?


     


    Not libel if the person is on court records saying one thing, while evidence shows another.

  • Reply 5 of 115
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:


    ?Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would?ve disclosed that,?



     


    THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?


     


     


    ...

  • Reply 6 of 115
    jdwjdw Posts: 581member
    I am in no way defending Sadsong Samsung on this, but this story begs the question. Why in THE world did Hogan grant an interview in the first place? And why did he feel compelled to "spill the beans" during that interview. From what I have read, had that interview never taken place, Samsung would have nothing to say at this point.
  • Reply 7 of 115
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member


    Man, it just gets muddier


     


    "The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung."


     


    from Groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

  • Reply 8 of 115


    Is Samsung trailing after the jury? Are they the Korean Mafia? Are they trying to bump off the jury? 

  • Reply 9 of 115
    Wasn't his prior history known during jury selection?
  • Reply 10 of 115
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


     


    Not libel if the person is on court records saying one thing, while evidence shows another.



     


    Mmm. But if, as he says, the question was specifically limited to a ten year time frame, then he has done nothing wrong.


     


    I also find it hard to believe that Samsung didn't know about the Seagate case before he was sworn in. 

  • Reply 11 of 115
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,230member


    I ran Samsung's arguments through a calculator and it came up with the following:


     



     


    I'd hate to bust your bubble, Samsung, but it was this:


     



     


    ...not this:


     



     


    ...that created your current predicament.


     


    Learn from it and grow up.


     


    You're making yourself look like a:


     


  • Reply 12 of 115
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,594member


    If Samsung wanted to know about a case 19 years ago, then that's what the instructions should have been.  They weren't.  Therefore, he answered the question truthfully.


     


    Seems like end of story to me.


     


    If someone asked me if I had been arrested in the past ten years, I would answer "No."  The question, "Have you ever been arrested?" would yield a different result.  It seems like Samsung is trying to cover up for their own incompetence -- something they've been doing since before the verdict, mind you.


     


    I find it UNBELIEVABLE that a multi-billion dollar international company can't figure out how to use Lexus/Nexus.

  • Reply 13 of 115
    ifij775ifij775 Posts: 470member
    I think Samsung would claim the moon is made out of cheese to try to get out of paying $1B to Apple
  • Reply 14 of 115
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rayz View Post


     


    Mmm. But if, as he says, the question was specifically limited to a ten year time frame, then he has done nothing wrong.


     


    I also find it hard to believe that Samsung didn't know about the Seagate case before he was sworn in. 



     


    The court transcripts do not support his claim of 10 years, groklaw links to them.


     


    THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?

  • Reply 15 of 115
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post


    If Samsung wanted to know about a case 19 years ago, then that's what the instructions should have been.  They weren't.  Therefore, he answered the question truthfully.


     


    Seems like end of story to me.


     


    If someone asked me if I had been arrested in the past ten years, I would answer "No."  The question, "Have you ever been arrested?" would yield a different result.  It seems like Samsung is trying to cover up for their own incompetence -- something they've been doing since before the verdict, mind you.


     


    I find it UNBELIEVABLE that a multi-billion dollar international company can't figure out how to use Lexus/Nexus.



     


    THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?

  • Reply 16 of 115
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    Man, it just gets muddier


     


    "The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung."


     


    from Groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770



     


    Quote:



    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


     


    The court transcripts do not support his claim of 10 years, groklaw links to them.


     


    THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?



     


    Thanks for bring this up.  


     


    So, Hogan was sued by Seagate which Samsung became a major shareholder of.  And Hogan was bankrupt due to the result of the court case.  Right?


     


    Moreover, a lawyer against Hogan in that case is married to a lawyer from the law firm which is defending Samsung.  Is it so?


     


    I always thought that this Apple v Samsung was better than watching any sport, but it is also better than any tv drama!!  

  • Reply 17 of 115
    techboytechboy Posts: 183member


    Samsung is really making a bad name for themselves right now. They lost and now they are digging dirt? Mr. Hogan is one vote! Really? I think I'm done with all Samsung products at this point. The latest Samsung ads putting down iPhone are just as silly, Apple is a brand, a lifestyle... Apple users want to be associated with the brand, get that in your heads Samsung. Whatever ad agency they have been using are retards. Apple haters likes to talks about specs and everything Android has for a "long" time, who the hell cares about what Android has on their phones? or Samsung phone in this case? Damn fools!

  • Reply 18 of 115
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,387member
    rayz wrote: »
    I also find it hard to believe that Samsung didn't know about the Seagate case before he was sworn in. 

    Just like they had a lawyer who wasn't licensed to practice in North California (AI link)
  • Reply 19 of 115
    philboogie wrote: »
    It just never ends with this company, does it? Think I'll sell my TV and get a different brand, just on these stories alone. They try to reverse eveything. Great going, gnusmaS.

    I agree with you. I may seem petty, but I am going to be doing the same, maybe come Super Bowl time. My wife had been on a feature phone, a Samsung. When she was due to renew, the one feature phone she liked was another Samsung. She chose (with some gentle prodding) an iPhone 4S...

    :)
  • Reply 20 of 115
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 521member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    Following the bizzare comments from the guy post-trial, this was just a matter of time.  


     


    The whole failing to provide the feedback re:lawsuit just adds a whole lot more substance to their discussion.




    He should have never been in the trial



    go play on an android site.

Sign In or Register to comment.