That would never stick and would most likely backfire horribly for several reasons:

1 - I'm a nomad, so you'd have to track me down, and chances are you'd not find me where you think I am because I rent PO Boxes -- This would complicate your life attempting to find a plausible location for the murder.

2 - I make sure to find roommates to live with wherever I go for personal protection -- This means it would be extremely hard to find me in a situation in which I wouldn't have an alibi.

3 - I take note of all strange occurrences (I would be taking note of your post if I felt like there was a chance of you tracking me down) with timestamps and have those notes signed at and authenticated by a notary, because I never know what my roommates (who are usually people I don't know from anywhere) may do and don't wish to be involved in it -- This would make it extremely hard for you to frame me without me recording strange events.

4 - I resort to electronic transactions as much as I can -- This means that even when I am not with others I can still be traced by the places where I use my cards.

5 - I carry an iPhone and am permanently logged in to location-tracking apps -- This means that even when I'm not making transactions there is still information about my location being submitted to some place.

6 - My record is sparkling clean, at 30 I am yet to receive a single fine -- This would greatly reduce the plausibility of successfully accusing me of murder.

7 - I have no enemies and no conflicts of interest with anyone, in addition to having already opted myself out of inheritance (my sister kept the goods) -- This would make it extremely hard to find a motive for me to kill.

I would never go to court knowing that I was being accused of murder without gathering as much evidence as I could to demonstrate, without a shadow of doubt, that it could never possibly have happened, regardless of your own evidence. This is where Samsung failed.

PS: I know you all want answers, but I've hit my post limit or whatever (apparently one can't post more than 30 times within 4 hours) and thus won't be responding to any more posts for a while (if at all).

You don't see any difference in the meanings? One involves, well, direct attempts to influence jury, other one:

Of course I see the difference, what I don't see is the relevance in this case...

Really? Just hearing description of evidence is enough to influence jury? You're quite dismissive of legal system here, assuming jury's not only gonna break obligation not to read media coverage of process, but also going to be influenced solely by description of evidence explicitly dismissed by the judge and not even meant for consideration by juror.

Yes, really. Whether it influences the jury or not doesn't really matter, what matters is the fact that Quinn brought it up in the courtroom thus showing intent, with the communication to the press after being repeatedly told that the evidence wouldn't be considered demonstrating his contempt of court.

Seriously, read the fucking article, I see you still didn't do that. Even Apple's lawyers refer only to publication as attempts to influence jury, not about jury hearing his description.

Since when is my opinion required to be in agreement with Apple's or anyone else's?

Explicit (adj.) Very specific, clear, or detailed.

They were clear about the subject of the evidence...

So, "reconsider her earlier decision that Samsung not be allowed to present evidence showing that Apple's iPhone was inspired by "Sony style."" is very specific, clear and detailed influence?

It is not required to be all of those, only any of those. Notice the OR. Are you so desperate for an argument that arguing (incorrectly) about semantics is the only way you can reply? It's OK to admit you're wrong!

Also, you're again doing your thing with renaming "inspired by "Sony style"" to "Apple copied SONY". Hyperboles much?

Why is this relevant?

Samsing wasn't allowed to introduce it because they missed the deadline. Apple introduced it. Grab a law book.

The burden of proof is on your side. You need to offer either a logical or a factual argument, so go ahead and quote that law book. I'm sure you can do it, otherwise you wouldn't be telling me to grab one, right?

And now you go from "tried to influence the jury with inadmissible evidence" to "tried to force inadmissible evidence".

What's the problem with that?

Did he present the said evidence to the jury against orders? Are reporters on the jury now?

Yes, by explicitly stating that the evidence was about Apple copying SONY in the courtroom.

Your definition of "Samsung explicitly tried to influence the jury in the courtroom using excluded evidence" is rather stretched.

I am yet to see how...

How is Samsung supposed to know what Apple 's going to talk about before they talk about it? And also pre-introduce evidence to refute what Apple's going to say before they say it?

That's what the pretrial was for... Samsung was probably counting on the Judge accepting their "evidence" after the deadline so that Apple wouldn't have a chance to file counter-evidence, a strategy that has obviously failed.

So you're saying the F700 is admissable evidence?

Or are you saying that it's inadmissable for Samsung but admissable for Apple?

Neither, the F700 is a phone. The references to the F700, however, are admissible in the case of Apple (because they were submitted before the deadline) but inadmissible in the case of Samsung (because they were not submitted before the deadline). If, after this, you can still not understand what I'm talking about without resorting to even more straw man fallacies (what you did here), I have no option but to consider you a troll.

Would you please stop this sh*t? In every single f*cking discussion regarding Apple vs Samsung, here comes Deorus droning ad nauseam in favor of his beloved Apple! No matter what argument was made by the one you're replying to, you keep spouting the same canned responses over and over.

Hint: this behavior does not make you look informed, it just pollutes the discussion and shows what a rabid fanboi you truly are.

I'm sure you can refute me, then...

The rest of your rebuttals are moot since you failed to read any of TFAs

Then I'm sure you can demonstrate how I failed and I will provide you with counter evidence to refute both you and TFA. ;)

Contempt requires an order. There was no order NOT to release the information, which was publicly available anyway.

Since when?

Source.

Why do you always link to things that contradict you?

I only did that once on Slashdot.

So yeah, pointing which of long published images were not admitted into trial in a press release not meant to be read by jurors is "trying to influence jury", as Apple made sure everyone knows. I'm sorry, I think you've messed up your post somehow, whose bullshit propaganda was that again?

You missed the point, what started it all were these events in the courtroom:

So, as you can see (and you probably saw, just decided to ignore because it wasn't convenient to you), the initial issue was not related to the media leak but rather to how Quinn tried to force inadmissible evidence in the courtroom/b.

The design of the F700 is precisely what Samsung is not being allowed to enter into evidence, slong with the facts regarding when that design was created. Meanwhile, Apple is being allowed to enter that very design into evidence *against* Samsing. What don't you understand about that? The moment Apple was allowed to use a photo of the design, Samsung should have been allowed to fill in the missing pieces.

Samsung missed the deadline, Apple didn't. What don't you understand about that?

It's perfectly justified to exclude it for both parties. Once it's allowed for one, but not the other, it's a display of judicial bias, grounds for appeal.

Why? Only one of the parties missed a deadline!

Your argument doesn't make sense. If the Jury isn't supposed talk about the trial outside the courtroom, or even look up any news about the trial or the participants, then what does it matter what was said to the media? The Jury won't see that information until AFTER the trial. Therefore the Samsung's comments to the press have no bearing on the case.

The jury isn't sequestered, they were only ordered to avoid it, but Samsung's contempt of court will make that information hard to avoid. They are essentially forcing the information on the jurors. Quinn mentioned it in the courtroom himself and was promptly reprimanded and threatened with sanctions, so his intent is perfectly clear, and the Judge can still sanction him.

So, Apple has the right to claim "Samsung slavishly copied us" before trial to determine this even begins, but Samsung isn't allowed to defend themselves?

Correct, Apple's claim is based on admissible evidence; Samsung's is not.

BTW, shouldn't _jury_ be expressly prohibited from getting any information related to the case outside of the courtroom? Which means neither Samsung's press-release, nor Apple's statements, nor, for example, this your comment should be known and mean anything for them. So, how's non-existant for jurors information makes this trial UNFAIR and PARTIAL?

Samsung's contempt of court is making sure that the jurors can't reasonably avoid being informed about the subject, and Quinn actually brought up the subject in the courtroom (that's actually how all this started).

Judge order all court documents unsealed.

No, she didn't.

So the media could have gone down to the court room and asked for a copy of the documents.

No, they can't. An open trial only means that they can assist the trial, nothing else.

Also Apple brought up the F700 first, which if you as you say are a lawyer allows defense to work through new evidence.

No, it doesn't. The "opening the door" doctrine only allows inadmissible evidence to be presented in response to an opposing party's presentation of inadmissible evidence. Apple did not present inadmissible evidence, so Samsung can't do that either. Samsung's evidence was considered inadmissible because they failed to meet the deadline -- their fault, they fucked up.

Quinn isn't an idiot , he probably did it to push the judge to an emotional response and she fell for it.

How did she fall for it?