Actually it's not that hard in this case since it's not 'jury tampering' in this case - merely 'juror misconduct'. They don't need to show motive even, just that it happened.
The jury is not supposed to deliberate on matters of law - they are supposed to weigh the evidence and deliberate on the specific questions they have and the instructions they have. [added]
What Juror's should/not do -- “was applying his experience to question the law, not using his experience to determine the facts”
For instance, they had specific instructions on what was patentable as a design patent, and what constituted 'prior art'. The jury cannot use a different definition of 'prior art' or deliberate on the definition of 'prior art', or use their previous legal experience to expand or explain 'prior art'. That would be considered jury misconduct.
This is why the jury is asked whether they can set aside their previous experience and deliberate using only the evidence and instructions for this case. Why is this necessary? Because matters of law could and do change, and are not for the jury to take a call on. [Not talking about jury nullification here].
It seemed to me like this is what the jury foreman did - he applied the law rather literally. When he said the fact that the Apple methods couldn't be invalidated by prior art because the old methods were incompatible with newer processors, as ludicrous as that sounds as an argument, it seemed to be a faithful interpretation of what they were told about the relevant laws.
Unless I am mistaken, the laws that make jury nullification possible are something that really only works one way. A jury can refuse to find someone guilty, despite all evidence for whatever reason they wish, but I don't think the opposite is true. An inbalance between 'guilty' and 'innocent' is built into the system, for example you can appeal a guilty verdict, but cannot appeal an innocent verdict.
I'm pretty sure your understanding is correct. A jury finding of "not guilty" in a criminal case cannot be overturned by a judge, but that's not true of any other finding a jury might make.
Nullification is not tied to double jeopardy, but the _method_ by which it can happen is far more restricted in jurisdictions where a not guilty verdict can be appealed, as it requires that the jury is either entirely in agreement (nobody talks about the nullification) or that the issue is simply not brought up by jurors who wish to nullify just refuses to budge.
In what jurisdictions can a not guilty verdict be appealed? Am I understanding correctly that the fact that nullification occurred would be grounds for an appeal in those jurisdictions?
My thought here is that in jurisdictions where jury nullification is normally possible and effective, it is only really effective if they give a not guilty verdict. A guilty verdict, given "just because" (or whatever), could be overturned in those jurisdictions, possibly even immediately by the judge.
(this wall of text brought to you by procrastination)
Canada allows appealing not guilty verdicts.
Also Norway, which is the system I know best, as do a substantial number of other European states, including e.g. Germany, France.
Norway (and most other European countries) do have forms of double jeopardy protection, but in Norway as in many other European countries as well as Canada, it does not attach until the case has been fully litigated and all appeals exhausted. Instead it prevents the government from bringing the case again once the case is _final_.
In Norway, the system has three levels. In criminal cases the lower court usually hear cases with a panel of three co-judges, two of which are lay persons selected from the jury pool. They deliberate together, and so nullification is effectively impossible at this stage as the professional judge can set aside a majority decision by the two lay judges voting together if their decision is a clear misapplication of the law. This right is used, but not frequently, given that the professional judge obviously in this system has ample opportunity to discuss the issue with the lay judges.
The higher court (lagmannsretten) will in more serious cases have three professional judges and a separate jury like in the US. In this case, nullification would be possible, but if the three professional judges unanimously believe that the evidence clearly indicates guilt, they can still set aside the jury decision. If they set it aside, the case is then retried at the same level without a jury, but with lay judges as in tingretten.
The last step is the supreme court, which only hears matters of law in the case of criminal cases, so in criminal cases an acquittal on matters of fact after (at worst) a second trial in lagmannsretten is almost certain to stand. As in the US, once the supreme court has either heard a case or refused to hear it (or neither side has appealed to the supreme court), the case is final. This is the point where double jeopardy attaches in Norway (there may be some very narrow exceptions, I'm not sure).
> Am I understanding correctly that the fact that nullification occurred would be grounds for an appeal in those jurisdictions?
I'm not a lawyer, but in general my understanding is that nullification _if proven_ would be grounds for appeal in any situation where an appeal is allowed pretty much everywhere, including in the US in civil cases.
This is also presumably the reason why we rarely hear about nullification outside the context of US criminal trials, because if/when it occurs it would need to be subtle and nobody on such a jury could really talk about it afterwards.
The problem in bringing an appeal in such cases is that given that the jury deliberations are private, substantiating appeals on such grounds can be extremely hard.
E.g. in the Apple vs. Samsung case a lot of Samsungs allegation of jury misconduct hinges on the fact that the foreman and at least one other juror (were there more?) have kept giving interviews and saying more and more things about the deliberations that are seemingly at odds with the instructions.
> My thought here is that in jurisdictions where jury nullification is normally possible and effective, it is only really effective if they give a not guilty verdict. A guilty verdict, given "just because" (or whatever), could be overturned in those jurisdictions, possibly even immediately by the judge.
You're right, it is vastly more powerful when the decision can't be appealed because they have the freedom to totally ignore evidence and instructions.
It can still happen in other situations, but it needs to at least be nominally possible to arrive at their decision while staying within the jury instructions which of course often will remove the opportunity to nullify in the type of clear-cut cases where nullification is most effectively used as a protest against unjust laws.
How? A jury that exercise jury nullification _are_ explicitly ignoring the law and the judges instructions. That is the very foundation of the concept.
Nullification is possible only because a jury does not have to logically justify their decisions, and in some jurisdictions (such as the US) can not be overturned at all in the case of not guilty decisions in a criminal trial.
That does not change whether or not jury misconduct may have occurred. It only means that the court and the prosecution is left with limited power to prevent it and, such as in the US, with no recourse if it happens in a criminal trial.
My thoughts were that if Samsung can successfully argue jury misconduct based on the deliberations inside the jury room, then any future verdict based on the doctrine of jury nullification can be similarly argued as 'misconduct' by the losing party.
In the case of a US criminal trial, where nullification usually happens, it is irrelevant as the prosecution can not appeal an acquittal.
But even in the case of a civil trial such as this, the only reason Samsung can argue jury misconduct is because members of the jury themselves have provided evidence by talking to the press. Even then, the barrier to getting a retrial are high.
Nullification as a concept is not protected other than as a byproduct of other concepts, such as the privacy of the jury deliberations, and the strength it gets from the protection against appeals of acquittals in criminal trials.
As such, Samsungs argument has absolutely zero bearing on the concept of jury nullifications - their arguments are based on the letter of the law and mountains of precedents setting the boundaries of exactly the extents to which the jury's decision can be question or set aside.
The jury is not supposed to deliberate on matters of law - they are supposed to weigh the evidence and deliberate on the specific questions they have and the instructions they have. [added] What Juror's should/not do -- “was applying his experience to question the law, not using his experience to determine the facts”
For instance, they had specific instructions on what was patentable as a design patent, and what constituted 'prior art'. The jury cannot use a different definition of 'prior art' or deliberate on the definition of 'prior art', or use their previous legal experience to expand or explain 'prior art'. That would be considered jury misconduct.
This is why the jury is asked whether they can set aside their previous experience and deliberate using only the evidence and instructions for this case. Why is this necessary? Because matters of law could and do change, and are not for the jury to take a call on. [Not talking about jury nullification here].