> I find it amazing you would write a 557 word reply and not include the following critical statement from the court that completely refutes your entire point about the court's intention in asking that question,
It's not possible for this statement to refute my point about the court's intention in asking the original question. Your quote comes after the show of hands question, and before the judge's own explanation of why the show of hands question was asked. Your quote is not part of the judge's explanation. We have to take the judge at her words.
What's more, to have anything to do with the Seagate issue, this question would have had to be have been phrased:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE, __OR ANY OTHER ENCOUNTER WITH THE COURT SYSTEM__, THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE?
That wasn't the phrasing, and the judge immediately followed the narrow question with returning to an explanation of the original "would anyone raise their hand" binary question: just want to make sure you jurors know this case may have different process and rules. The context shows what was on the judge's mind at the start and the end.
> and fully supports Samsung's argument:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE? [1, p149:14]
If it were such a linchpin, Samsung would have included it in the filing. It's not.
Even if the judge had been asking about the Seagate case, which the judge was not, Hogan could -- in his mind -- truthfully answer "No" to this question. It's not easily falsifiable. For all we know, a juror may not be the sort to hold grudges, or may have an infinite "ability to be fair and impartial to both sides" even if one side stole his pancakes and the other side saved his life. This is why the law has restrictions on someone testifying as to a defendant's state of mind.
It's not possible for this statement to refute my point about the court's intention in asking the original question. Your quote comes after the show of hands question, and before the judge's own explanation of why the show of hands question was asked. Your quote is not part of the judge's explanation. We have to take the judge at her words.
What's more, to have anything to do with the Seagate issue, this question would have had to be have been phrased:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE, __OR ANY OTHER ENCOUNTER WITH THE COURT SYSTEM__, THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE?
That wasn't the phrasing, and the judge immediately followed the narrow question with returning to an explanation of the original "would anyone raise their hand" binary question: just want to make sure you jurors know this case may have different process and rules. The context shows what was on the judge's mind at the start and the end.
> and fully supports Samsung's argument: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE? [1, p149:14]
If it were such a linchpin, Samsung would have included it in the filing. It's not.
Even if the judge had been asking about the Seagate case, which the judge was not, Hogan could -- in his mind -- truthfully answer "No" to this question. It's not easily falsifiable. For all we know, a juror may not be the sort to hold grudges, or may have an infinite "ability to be fair and impartial to both sides" even if one side stole his pancakes and the other side saved his life. This is why the law has restrictions on someone testifying as to a defendant's state of mind.