“Were you wondering how Samsung found out about the lawsuit that Hogan failed to mention in voir dire, the litigation between Seagate and Hogan that Samsung dug up? Apple was, as I’ll show you. You wouldn’t believe it if it was in a movie script. 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.”
It turns out that Hogan, the rogue chairman of the jury, had been sued by Seagate, with Samsung now a major shareholder of Seagate. Can you spell, “Conflict of Interest, Boys and Girls” ?
“The issue, then, is juror misconduct, not that they just didn’t know what they were doing during deliberations. Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party. Hogan told Reuters (see 2012 [PDF]) that he wasn’t asked about all cases. But he was, as you can see for yourself in the transcript [PDF] of the voir dire. If he was on a crusade to get back at Seagate/Samsung, he might logically not wish to reveal this litigation, knowing he’d likely be cut from the jury. One has to wonder if he always tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Did he fail to answer fully and truthfully because he was so eager to be on the jury? If he had revealed the Seagate issue, no doubt Samsung would have objected to him being on the jury. As Samsung points out, there is a case, United States v. Colombo [PDF], that held that “A juror’s failure to answer truthfully also may constitute a ‘prejudicial impairment’ of a party’s ‘right to the exercise of peremptory challenges.’” So Samsung was robbed of that opportunity.”
see Groklaw – Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj.
I don’t see how the judge can deny Samsung’s motion for judgement considering the foreman’s proactive approach reported in the media and his history of conflict with Seagate, now owned by Samsung in a big way. There’s just no way to put this mess back in the box.
17406
12727
206
3
2
23839 
11829 
11681 
4610 
4236 
1641 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
The story has just rolled into the next chapter and is no way complete.
The jury foreman should be looking at contempt.
dougman wrote, “The jury foreman should be looking at contempt.”
I doubt courts want to punish jurors because they are essential to the system but this seems far removed from just a human mistake or misinterpretation of the rules. It appears to me to have been wilful. That should be punished.
Further, the other jurors were not exactly innocent. They had the court’s instructions and did not follow them, for instance, taking “evidence” from the foreman. Why did none of them inform the court what was going on? Why did the one supposed fair-minded juror give in? Why did he not inform the judge extraneous evidence was presented to the jurors by the foreman? It’s such a mess. I expect the judge will decide for a new trial or give her own ruling in place of the jury. She has a couple of choices at least. I would bet Samsung is drooling at the chance to do it over again with a different jury, now that they know how the judge operates. I would bet the judge would love to have a chance to give different rulings along the way. Everyone has had an education in this case.