Here's a particularly obvious example:
Commentary:
Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party. Hogan told Reuters (see 2012 [PDF]) that he wasn't asked about all cases. But he was, as you can see for yourself in the transcript [PDF] of the voir dire.
No, Hogan was not "specifically asked ... to list all cases" according either Samsung's filing or the linked transcript.
At least Samsung's filing gets it right:
Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others...
Sorry, Groklaw, Hogan was not "specifically" asked to "list all" cases. The actual question, including sentences before and after for context (all caps in transcript):
LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS? LET'S SEE. ON THE FIRST ROW, WHO WOULD RAISE THEIR HAND TO THAT QUESTION? ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.
The question "specifically" asks about the singular, "a lawsuit". Note the phrase "who would raise their hand to that?" It's a binary question.
At the time of the question, it wasn't about patents, it was to determine if jurors have encountered the court system as a participant, yes or no. The followup questions did drill into the nature of the case Hogan mentioned, but the judge didn't follow up further because that wasn't the purpose of the original question.
Skipping down in the transcript a bit, the judge tells us the purpose of the "have you been involved in a lawsuit" question:
WE'LL TALK FURTHER ABOUT WHO'S BEEN ON JURY DUTY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OF PROOF IN DIFFERENT CASES, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ALL HAD CIVIL CASES, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
This makes it clear the question wasn't how many cases the juror was involved in, but whether the juror had been exposed to concepts around rule of law in different types of cases. The judge continues:
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES, THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND ALSO THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WHENEVER YOU WERE A LITIGANT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
So no, Hogan was responsive and accurate and the question was not asking for an itemized list of cases. It was to set up the point about standards of proof and judicial instructions.