Jurors are instructed to use their common judgemment and give wait to the evidence they see fit. In other words if they dont believe one witness is truthful they can disregard all of that witness testimony. If there are 2 expert witness' with opposing views, they decide which one to give the most weight too. etc., etc. yes there are some basic instructions about only basing their opinion on what is heard in the courtroom etc, but it still comes down to what they believe or dont believe.
I never said the juror goes in with a pre determined verdict in their mind, and yes that could cause a mistrial, but they develope their opinion on a daily basis as they listen to the examination and cross of each witness presented. And some do go home and listen to the news or talk shows about the case, contrary to somes beliefs. They are human beings and when human beings are involved in anything, there will be 12 different views among 12 different people. Thats why they then go to the jury room after the case is over, to go over those different views and try to form a consensus.
You cant compel a jury to reach any verdict, and if they strongly believe in their view, the best result you will get is a hung jury, because of the one hold out, and there is nothing that can be done to that one juror legally if they voted their conscience.
And everyone posting here can site at least one case involving a jury, where the evidence pointed to one thing but the jury ruled another way. I personally can think of several.
So NEOM still has to convince that jury thorugh their attorneys, unless its a Judge trial and then they have to convince the judge, which is easier to do then a jury.
_______________________________________
OK, Brew.
I realize now I have been dragged into your trap. I am going to dig myself out and be done with you.
Here is my charge for you.
Interview 100 people off of the street about IP and tell all of us here how many of them will have any view, let alone 12 different among any 12. Those would be the people that you don't want to talk to. Now take the remaining people and ask them if they have ever been involved in a dispute that involved ownership. You can rule them out next. Interview the remaining folks and ask them if you were to explain IP and ownership if they could come to a reasonable conclusion of who was following the letter of the law as it was explained to them. (There are a number of other questions that are relevant to this exercise but I will exclude them for the sake of brevity) When you finish with your interview you will have established the criteria for trying this case. Its also known as jury selection.
If I was representing NeoMedia in a legal capacity, I would interview a thousand prospective jurors if I had to in order to get what I was looking for. Might I remind you that this case is not and will not be tried on Television and there are no public defenders representing this case so your assertion that all or any of the jurors would go home and watch TV and be influenced by what they see doesn't fit in this argument. Also, when you mention that one cannot compel a jury to reach any verdict if they strongly believe in their view (those are your direct words), then I would point out to you that it is the legal teams responsibility not to let anyone on the jury that falls into that category, so your argument while it may be correct in spirit is non-applicable to this situation.
Lastly, tell me how conveying IP would necessitate ordinary witnesses. (Expert testimony would be all that is needed).
One thing I do agree with you on is the pretense that all of this is moot if tried in front of a Judge and not a jury. Unfortunately, though, it bolsters my assertion that the most important part of this case is the legal teams ability to convince and convey relevance of evidence, not to whom they are speaking. The jury selection process will have all but eliminated your argument, IMO.
HTJ
AI
