Exhibits beyond number, and I have them all for you. One filing alone, for example, has over 100 exhibits. But the one that took my breath away is this one -- a large excerpt of the voir dire, or jury selection process, Exhibit 1 [PDF] attached to the John Pierce Declaration in Support of Samsung's motion. And what we see is the foreman being asked if he is chosen for a jury whether he will set aside all he knew of patent law from his own experience and just follow the court's instructions and judge based solely on evidence admitted at trial. He answers yes. That, of course, is exactly what he did not do, judging from interviews he and another juror gave to the media.

So aside from all the issues Samsung highlighted in the publicly available version of the motion as to things mishandled by the court and the jury, including the jury's incredibly unsustainable math, we now see one of the pieces in support of Samsung's redacted section, which is now obviously claiming juror misconduct. In the previous article, I wrote that I strongly suspected it, based on the cases cited. But now we have a smoking gun, so to speak.



Here's a segment of the voir dire of the prospective jurors, one of whom ended up foreman, with the judge asking the questions -- sorry it's in all caps, but that's how the document is :

THE COURT: okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with the questions. The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? Let's see. On the first row, who would raise their hand to that question? All right. let's go to Mr. Hogan. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: In 2008, after my company went belly up, the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me and ultimately, across the next few months, it was dismissed and in such a fashion that neither one of us could sue the other one for that matter. THE COURT: What was his -- what was the employee's claim? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was a dispute over the software that we had developed, whether it belonged to the company or to him, and I had documents that showed it belonged to the company. Ultimately, as I said, it would -- we settled out of court and it was dismissed. THE COURT: All right. Anything about that experience that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't believe so. THE COURT: Okay. Was there any dispute -- was there any dispute as to who had created and invented the technology, or was it largely who had ownership of it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was strictly who had ownership of it, and ultimately it was established that the company did have ownership of it, although -- and I still do -- although the company is not in business any longer. THE COURT: I see. But was there a sort of dispute as to who had created or invented the technology as part of that ownership question? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, there was. THE COURT: Um-hum. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: But like I said, we settled that -- because of documentation I had, we were able to settle it out of court and then we went back to court one last time for the dismissal paperwork. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.... So I want to make sure that both Mr. Hogan, and Ms. Rougieri, that you would apply the law as I instruct you and not based on your understanding of the law based on your own cases. Is that correct, Mr. Hogan? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes..... THE COURT: Okay. All right. Would that in any way -- you'll be instructed on what the law is and would you be able to follow the instructions I give you on the law, even if it may not completely correspond to what you may know about the patent system or the intellectual property laws? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, I follow your instructions. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Let's go, I think, to ms. Halim, Mr. Okamoto, and Mr. Hogan. You raised your hands. Okay. let's please start with Ms. Halim. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay. I have two patents. One is issued when I was at weitek, also I.C. Design. Another one was at silicon graphics. THE COURT: And it was also on I.C. Design? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, right. THE COURT: Okay. Were patents issued? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: And you were the inventor on both? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything from that experience -- basically you obviously will bring your life experience to your role as a juror, but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.... THE COURT: Okay. And do you have any patent applications pending now?.... Let's go to Mr. Hogan. You had some? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Excuse me. In 2002, I filed for a patent in video compression software, and in 2008, the patent was issued to me. And in 2008 I filed a follow-on patent in more detail and that is currently pending. THE COURT: I see. Okay. All right.... THE COURT: Now, same for Mr. Tepman, as well as to Mr. Hogan. You all have a lot of experience, but will you be able to decide this case based solely on the evidence that's admitted during the trial? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hogan says yes. What about Mr. Tepman? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think so, too. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Now, was anyone else going to answer yes to the question of have you ever had an idea taken from you? The record should reflect no hands have been raised. Now, the next question, have you ever been accused of taking an idea from someone else? Would you please raise your hand? All right. Let's go to Mr. Hogan. Would you please pass the microphone, Mr. Tepman? Thank you. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: As I had stated earlier, that was -- in 2008, that was the accusation against me before the patent was issued. But as I said, that case ultimately was dropped in my favor. THE COURT: Now, when the programmer sued you, was that programmer also a co-inventor on the patent? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.... THE COURT: No. I see. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: The patent was issued totally -- exclusively in my name. THE COURT: I see. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: And I had filed for that patent prior to his joining the effort to work for it. That was part of my documentation showing that it was mine. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let me ask, if you have strong feelings or strong opinions about either the United States patent system or intellectual property laws, would you raise your hand, please? The record should reflect that no hands have been raised....

Also, be aware that when jurors answer questions in voir dire, the lawyers on both sides do check. Sometimes they don't have time to fully check someone's answers prior to the jury being formed. It all goes quite quickly, but that doesn't mean the lawyers stop checking out what the jurors say. As you saw in the previous article, if a prospective juror answers questions in a way that later proves to be untrue, that can be an issue. Similarly, if they are asked a question and fail to mention something pertinent, that can be a problem too. For example, if the judge asks if anyone has ever been involved in any litigation, and a juror doesn't mention one and it turns out to be relevant topically, that could be a problem. And if a juror introduces evidence that was not presented at trial, and that piece is what turns the tide and results in a verdict, that's a problem too.

And that's exactly why the judge asks the questions and makes clear to the jury pool what the rules of the road are going to be, so they can tell the judge that they can't follow just the law, or whatever, and then they can be released and won't serve on the jury.

I say these things could be a problem, because sometimes they happen but it doesn't end up mattering. The tendency is for jury verdicts to stand, even if there is a problem. That's because the system doesn't want jurors harrassed, and because you do want there to be a reliable The End to a trial. I saw one case where a juror was drunk during deliberations in a criminal trial, and even that wasn't enough to alter the outcome. But there are for sure cases where misconduct resulted in overturning a verdict or sending the case back for a new trial. We'll wait and see which this turns out to be. [Update: A Groklaw member, SLi, has posted a comment with a list of some of the relevant cases Samsung is listing in its motion, with a brief snippet of each to show what the case was about.]

Here are all of the PDFs filed from docket numbers 1979-1993. That, of course, includes the Samsung and Apple motions that we highlighted in the previous article, but now you have all the supporting documents as well. It's taken a while just to collect them, and I haven't yet had a chance to read them all, so we can do that together. Some of them are large chunks of transcripts from the trial, by the way, so we now get an advance peek at that event.

Keep in mind that when you see a lawyer declaration, it generally will be a list of exhibits, explaining what each one is. For example, the Declaration of B. Dylan Proctor, attached to #1988, is a list of exhibits, and so is the Declaration of Jason Bartlett, attached to #1983.

With so many documents at once, it's very unlikely that I made no mistakes, so do sing out if you see something that isn't perfectly aligned. As I went along and realized what a whale of a project this is, I began to name the PDFs in ways that may save you downloading. For example, if the exhibit is sealed or manually filed, I included that in the name, so if you mouse over the link, you can see that. And if it's a patent, I listed that too. I didn't do that for all of them, so if you should avoid patents, be aware of this thicket and look at the lawyer declarations for guidance.

If someone has the ambition to make a list of what everything is in HTML, I'll gladly post it as a map for everyone to follow. That will surely help us keep track of what everything is.

The documents: