It wasn't excluded because of the content, it was excluded because it was submitted after the discovery phase and this is a timed trial. Apple would not have had time to examine or refute the photo at such short notice. Samsung had months to enter this evidence. That they waited indicates they were playing a game to either hit Apple with this while denying them time to prepare, or to make a fuss about how "this critical evidence" was refused by the judge. The photo and phone proved little - it was a thick slider phone with a keyboard that just happened to be a rectangle viewed from the front. What it did do was sway public opinion and possibly the jury and help establish material for appeal.
And what is her side? Oh that's right, we don't know what she can or will do. Until then we ought to construct our beliefs in proportion to the evidence at hand. Apple's claiming Samsung is trying to tamper with the jury. Samsung explained there is no way to tamper with the jury since the jury was instructed not to follow any media related to this case. So unless the jury is not fulfilling its function/duty, which is not a reasonable assumption of law abiding citizens, there can be no jury tampering in principle. Sounds like one side gave an argument and the other did not. I'll let you decide which is which.
Being found guilty of Jury tampering does not require that the Jury actually be swayed. It is the *attempt* to sway them that is illegal. Samsung is trying to get the Sony image into the Juror's heads... sowing the seeds of doubt and familiarity.
They are trying to make Apple's argument feel inauthentic. It's very similar to asking a defendant "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
The question will be objected to, and likely stricken, but the Jury heard it... even instructed to ignore it, it's sowing the seeds of doubt.
In this case Samsung has no chance to even ask that loaded question in court, so they turned external in order to raise such a stink that via the media coverage the (non sequestered mind you!) Jury might hear about it.
This may just be sabre rattling, or this may be a sign of a huge imploding case.... if I were Samsung, I'd be preparing that backup licensing plan.
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.
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".. MAY WIGGLE OUT BUT HAS LOST CREDIBILIY WITH JUDGE AND MAYBE JURORS TOO. Fine line between advocacy and violation of ethics. Think this was a clear argument he was not permitted by judge on 3 occasions. Will hurt him and his firm in long run. He went the extra mile for his client. But was it worth it? Ml
I thought he was referring to "pleading the fifth".
No it was a simple mistake. Most people understood given the context that I meant to imply the free speech clause, as Quinn himself discussed in the declaration. 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.
So again I ask, what is Samsung's legal transgression here?
Trying to pollute the jury by polluting public opinion around it — by presenting an entirely irrelevant picture and quotation and pretending that it and it alone makes their case, and that in not allowing it to be evidence Koh is trying to keep this decisive evidence out of the jury's hands. This is tantamount to accusing Koh of shocking bias against Samsung, essentially tarnishing her reputation. No wonder she is livid.
No it was a simple mistake. Most people understood given the context that I meant to imply the free speech clause, as Quinn himself discussed in the declaration. 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.
Simple mistakes make by simpletons. You're blocked by me, too.
Being found guilty of Jury tampering does not require that the Jury actually be swayed. It is the *attempt* to sway them that is illegal. Samsung is trying to get the Sony image into the Juror's heads... sowing the seeds of doubt and familiarity.
They are trying to make Apple's argument feel inauthentic. It's very similar to asking a defendant "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
The question will be objected to, and likely stricken, but the Jury heard it... even instructed to ignore it, it's sowing the seeds of doubt.
In this case Samsung has no chance to even ask that loaded question in court, so they turned external in order to raise such a stink that via the media coverage the (non sequestered mind you!) Jury might hear about it.
This may just be sabre rattling, or this may be a sign of a huge imploding case.... if I were Samsung, I'd be preparing that backup licensing plan.
Thanks for your intelligent response. Here's the problem as far as I can see. The jury was instructed not to follow the media covering this case. So unless the jury is not abiding by that command (and there is no reason to think they are not), it cannot become aware of what's being discussed in the media on this issue. Now, if the jury could not be trusted to follow those instructions, or if the media coverage was impossible to ignore, it seems that would be a good reason to sequester them. But I don't think the coverage in this particular case is so pervasive that a juror couldn't ignore the media coverage, as instructed, so there simply is no need to sequester them. In an appeal, since the coverage was already widespread and not ignored by anyone in particular, it would seem sequestering might be a necessity. So in short, I don't see how this is a problem. But I'm happy to revise my perspective if someone makes a more convincing case.
Trying to pollute the jury by polluting public opinion around it — by presenting an entirely irrelevant picture and quotation and pretending that it and it alone makes their case, and that in not allowing it to be evidence Koh is trying to keep this decisive evidence out of the jury's hands. This is tantamount to accusing Koh of shocking bias against Samsung, essentially tarnishing her reputation. No wonder she is livid.
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.
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 seem to be sticking to this single point: that the jury is "meant to ignore media coverage" therefore nothing Samsung does to interfere with the jury so that it can't ignore media coverage can possibly be unlawful. This is a terrible defence. If I do something that attempts to prevent you from doing your duty then I am in the wrong, irrespective of you having been told clearly what your duty is. Because, and this is what you miss: I also have a duty not to attempt to prevent you from doing your duty. In this case Samsung is trying to weaken the authority of the judge's instructions to the court by making them seemed biased.
And how about we have a little bit less from you implying that you are engaging in rational debate and everyone else is just Apple-mongering. You have been told your mistake several times now but it doesn't seem to sink in.
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.
Not possible unless the jury is already corrupt. Are you insinuating the jury is corrupt?
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."
Oh, it's clear Koh is annoyed by this. She told Samsung's team to stop going on about it, and warned of a sanction. It is only natural for her to get even more irritated when Samsung pulled this little stunt. They are trying/testing the judge's patience. But the question is whether Koh can do anything about this particular indiscretion, according to the law. We will soon find out no doubt. And though trying a judge's patience is typically bad form/advice, if Samsung feels that the excluded evidence is as important as they apparently do, maybe it's not such a bad legal strategy after all. I suspect they are testing the grounds for a possible appeal on grounds of mistrial, since if the reason the evidence is really excluded is that it was filed late, that mistake won't happen the next time around. So again I ask, what is Samsung's legal transgression here?
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?
You seem to be sticking to this single point: that the jury is "meant to ignore media coverage" therefore nothing Samsung does to interfere with the jury so that it can't ignore media coverage can possibly be unlawful. This is a terrible defence. If I do something that attempts to prevent you from doing your duty then I am in the wrong, irrespective of you having been told clearly what your duty is. Because, and this is what you miss: I also have a duty not to attempt to prevent you from doing your duty. In this case Samsung is trying to weaken the authority of the judge's instructions to the court by making them seemed biased.
And how about we have a little bit less from you implying that you are engaging in rational debate and everyone else is just Apple-mongering. You have been told your mistake several times now but it doesn't seem to sink in.
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.
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."
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.
Comments
It wasn't excluded because of the content, it was excluded because it was submitted after the discovery phase and this is a timed trial. Apple would not have had time to examine or refute the photo at such short notice. Samsung had months to enter this evidence. That they waited indicates they were playing a game to either hit Apple with this while denying them time to prepare, or to make a fuss about how "this critical evidence" was refused by the judge. The photo and phone proved little - it was a thick slider phone with a keyboard that just happened to be a rectangle viewed from the front. What it did do was sway public opinion and possibly the jury and help establish material for appeal.
Yes, please do ignore me for trying to have an intelligent conversation. Nothing like hiding dissent whenever it pops up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
And what is her side? Oh that's right, we don't know what she can or will do. Until then we ought to construct our beliefs in proportion to the evidence at hand. Apple's claiming Samsung is trying to tamper with the jury. Samsung explained there is no way to tamper with the jury since the jury was instructed not to follow any media related to this case. So unless the jury is not fulfilling its function/duty, which is not a reasonable assumption of law abiding citizens, there can be no jury tampering in principle. Sounds like one side gave an argument and the other did not. I'll let you decide which is which.
Being found guilty of Jury tampering does not require that the Jury actually be swayed. It is the *attempt* to sway them that is illegal. Samsung is trying to get the Sony image into the Juror's heads... sowing the seeds of doubt and familiarity.
They are trying to make Apple's argument feel inauthentic. It's very similar to asking a defendant "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
The question will be objected to, and likely stricken, but the Jury heard it... even instructed to ignore it, it's sowing the seeds of doubt.
In this case Samsung has no chance to even ask that loaded question in court, so they turned external in order to raise such a stink that via the media coverage the (non sequestered mind you!) Jury might hear about it.
This may just be sabre rattling, or this may be a sign of a huge imploding case.... if I were Samsung, I'd be preparing that backup licensing plan.
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.
Communication with jurors, families, friends of jurors etc.
Called a an" ex parte communication"..
MAY WIGGLE OUT BUT HAS LOST CREDIBILIY
WITH JUDGE AND MAYBE JURORS
TOO.
Fine line between advocacy and violation of ethics.
Think this was a clear argument he was not permitted by judge on 3 occasions.
Will hurt him and his firm in long run.
He went the extra mile for his client.
But was it worth it?
Ml
No it was a simple mistake. Most people understood given the context that I meant to imply the free speech clause, as Quinn himself discussed in the declaration. 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
So again I ask, what is Samsung's legal transgression here?
Trying to pollute the jury by polluting public opinion around it — by presenting an entirely irrelevant picture and quotation and pretending that it and it alone makes their case, and that in not allowing it to be evidence Koh is trying to keep this decisive evidence out of the jury's hands. This is tantamount to accusing Koh of shocking bias against Samsung, essentially tarnishing her reputation. No wonder she is livid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
No it was a simple mistake. Most people understood given the context that I meant to imply the free speech clause, as Quinn himself discussed in the declaration. 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.
Simple mistakes make by simpletons. You're blocked by me, too.
Thanks for your intelligent response. Here's the problem as far as I can see. The jury was instructed not to follow the media covering this case. So unless the jury is not abiding by that command (and there is no reason to think they are not), it cannot become aware of what's being discussed in the media on this issue. Now, if the jury could not be trusted to follow those instructions, or if the media coverage was impossible to ignore, it seems that would be a good reason to sequester them. But I don't think the coverage in this particular case is so pervasive that a juror couldn't ignore the media coverage, as instructed, so there simply is no need to sequester them. In an appeal, since the coverage was already widespread and not ignored by anyone in particular, it would seem sequestering might be a necessity. So in short, I don't see how this is a problem. But I'm happy to revise my perspective if someone makes a more convincing case.
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.
As if I care.
Obviously, you care enough to post a response (which he cannot see because he blocked you).
I care enough to inform others I have no problem with them ignoring me if they have nothing to contribute, sure. Have anything else to add?
Intentionally angering the judge at the beginning of a trial. Interesting strategy.
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.
You seem to be sticking to this single point: that the jury is "meant to ignore media coverage" therefore nothing Samsung does to interfere with the jury so that it can't ignore media coverage can possibly be unlawful. This is a terrible defence. If I do something that attempts to prevent you from doing your duty then I am in the wrong, irrespective of you having been told clearly what your duty is. Because, and this is what you miss: I also have a duty not to attempt to prevent you from doing your duty. In this case Samsung is trying to weaken the authority of the judge's instructions to the court by making them seemed biased.
And how about we have a little bit less from you implying that you are engaging in rational debate and everyone else is just Apple-mongering. You have been told your mistake several times now but it doesn't seem to sink in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
To be expected, Apple want's "emergency sanctions". The whole case will look like a circus the next several days IMO.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57484757-37/apple-seeks-emergency-sanctions-against-samsung/
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.
Quote:
I care enough
You just wrote, "As if I care" which means you do not care.
Which is it?
to inform others I have no problem with them ignoring me
You did not inform him of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Not possible unless the jury is already corrupt. Are you insinuating the jury is corrupt?
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."
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?
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 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.