johndoe98
About
- Username
- johndoe98
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 278
Reactions
Comments
-
sennen wrote: » As as has already been said, "open" and "public" in a legal context are different to what you believe them to be. Perhaps you should take your views to the relevant authority that monitors the performance of judges, I'm sure these …
-
diddy wrote: » Except for one important thing, the statements that were made in public were excluded from evidence. Not to mention that freedom of speech is not absolute. Samsung's lawyer can certainly be sanctioned because he made statements ba…
-
sennen wrote: » A declaration that was not made in a legal setting, ie inside the court, yes? No it was the declaration signed and submitted to the court under penalty of perjury. It's linked in the OP.
-
jragosta wrote: » So Samsung's attorney will have presented only accurate, legal arguments that are not open to question and not biased in any way, right? /s I didn't say or suggest that. I said he seems to have a good argument given the evid…
-
jragosta wrote: » Exactly. I have to laugh at the suggestion made by another poster that Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. It's a shame that civics is apparently not taught (or taught poorly) in so many areas. Good of yo…
-
sennen wrote: » "Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence. In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsun…
-
eluard wrote: » I'm curious to know what would make you say such a thing — are you claiming inside knowledge? My hypothesis is Quinn is not an idiot. Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who menti…
-
wovel wrote: » 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 …
-
SpamSandwich wrote: » Lame. Nice argument.
-
tbell wrote: » 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 p…
-
tbell wrote: » 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…
-
tbell wrote: » Sure something is new, it is being reported in every media outlet while the jury is sitting. That was true even before Samsung answered AllthingD's emails.
-
tbell wrote: » 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 …
-
sennen wrote: » I think you missed the memo. 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 fa…
-
freckledbruh wrote: » Actually "spitting in the court's face" is illegal (at the discretion of the judge) since it is considered contempt of court. Ok wrong expression then. Expressing strong dissent.
-
freckledbruh wrote: » 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 rel…
-
gatorguy wrote: » 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 …
-
berp wrote: » 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, dest…
-
freckledbruh wrote: » 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 tamperin…
-
eluard wrote: » 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 te…