>Agreed, but if the two sides don't disagree on a fact, then the Jury should be informed of the fact if it affects their deliberations (for example, when determining the amount of a penalty), but there's nothing that they need to decide related to that fact.
Yes. I'm certainly in favor of the bias being toward giving the jurors more information, not less.
>In any case, Jurors are not supposed to be introducing evidence or providing testimony on 'how things work'.
It sounds like the jury foreman did cross a line in this case. But jury decisions will inevitably be informed by the knowledge and experience of the jurors. Which is why counsel are given so many opportunities to exclude potential jurors. I can't imagine why Samsung didn't bounce this guy.
>Yes, Juror's have the option of sending a question to the Judge, but since that goes through the foreman, it really doesn't work in this case.
I think that interfering with another juror's desire send a question to the judge would be an even grosser violation than "advising" the jurors on patent law.
My point was that it would be worthwhile to allow jurors to make requests for additional *evidence*, not merely clarifications of points of law, as is currently the case. While this would certainly have downsides, I think it would be preferable to the current "management" of the jurors.