I'm kinda duplicating another post elsewhere, but, from what little I know of California state law, it would be Jury Misconduct...
With a couple caveats... everyplace I see the term Jury Misconduct, it's in criminal trials. So there's that. It also seems to operate under the assumption that the Jurist's misconduct comes to light before the Jury rules.
Once the Judge determines that misconduct has occurred, it looks like they have enormous latitude on how to proceed. They can yell at them (I think the term is technically "admonish"), discharge the jury, declare a mistrial... (with or without prejudice).
I don't see the judge explicitly having the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct, but, more importantly, I also don't see anything saying the judge doesn't have the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct.
I may be an idiot, but I'm genuinely not seeing where he enriched himself from the ruling. I suppose if the Jury came back and said "there's no such thing as prior art" then, yes. I get where he might have perceived this as personal gain, but, like I said... how is he enriching himself off an unrelated patent case?
I'm pretty sure that's Jury Misconduct, tampering is when it's someone who's not on the jury who's trying to influence it. When it's a jury member, it's misconduct... it might also be a contempt charge, but I'm not a lawyer.
On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With a couple caveats... everyplace I see the term Jury Misconduct, it's in criminal trials. So there's that. It also seems to operate under the assumption that the Jurist's misconduct comes to light before the Jury rules.
Once the Judge determines that misconduct has occurred, it looks like they have enormous latitude on how to proceed. They can yell at them (I think the term is technically "admonish"), discharge the jury, declare a mistrial... (with or without prejudice).
I don't see the judge explicitly having the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct, but, more importantly, I also don't see anything saying the judge doesn't have the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct.
On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
Re: Re:
On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
Re: Isn't this...
Next >>