I expect Samsung's lawyers will focus some effort on this, the Foreman set him self up as an unacknowledged expert witness. And if the Jury member's statements are strictly correct, then a lawyer would argue that the Jury debate was tampered by evidence that was not introduced at trial. Judges go out of their way to point out to Jurors that the job requires considering just the evidence that was presented at trial and nothing else (which is why evidence rules see a lot of fireworks).
So the argument will go, this juror set their self up as an expert in the minds of the other jurors, gave testimony (evidence) on the veracity or relevance of the evidence presented, and that materially influenced the verdict. The client, Samsung, was denied due process because the were not allowed to cross examine this testimony.
Now it sounds simple but its not really as simple as that, because the Jury is expected to debate the evidence and trade opinions on whether or not they believed it. So what the lawyers would need to prove is that by creating the impression of being an expert, this jurors opinions carried undue weight with the other jurors and rose to the level of effectively new testimony. Its hard to prove a jury tampered with itself :-). I've got a fuzzy memory of something like this being pursued in either the Enron case ore of the AT&T cases but sadly I don't have access to Lexis.
More likely the speed of the verdict and the inconsistencies in the verdict will be sufficient for the court to take some action.
I do know that there will more motions and what not but I am not at all comfortable predicting the outcome :-)
So the argument will go, this juror set their self up as an expert in the minds of the other jurors, gave testimony (evidence) on the veracity or relevance of the evidence presented, and that materially influenced the verdict. The client, Samsung, was denied due process because the were not allowed to cross examine this testimony.
Now it sounds simple but its not really as simple as that, because the Jury is expected to debate the evidence and trade opinions on whether or not they believed it. So what the lawyers would need to prove is that by creating the impression of being an expert, this jurors opinions carried undue weight with the other jurors and rose to the level of effectively new testimony. Its hard to prove a jury tampered with itself :-). I've got a fuzzy memory of something like this being pursued in either the Enron case ore of the AT&T cases but sadly I don't have access to Lexis.
More likely the speed of the verdict and the inconsistencies in the verdict will be sufficient for the court to take some action.
I do know that there will more motions and what not but I am not at all comfortable predicting the outcome :-)