Notice the implicit assumption: Jurors are not within their authority to decide guilt or innocence on an issue, they are simply not allowed to cite a prior jury's findings as a basis for their own decisions. (Highly ironic, considering how the judiciary worships "precedence".)
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve always thought that “precedence” applied very strictly to judges’ decisions and attempts to influence a jury’s decision by reference to previous rulings or convictions was a no-no.
Sounds to me as if some great legal minds for VirnetX tried for two bites at the Apple (yeah, I know it’s a terrible pun) and just got bit on the a$$ instead.
Terrible thing to behold.
/sarc (plus extended and robust laughter.)
The previous jury's decision was invalidated by an appeals court, which sent it back for a new trial. Ergo, what the previous jury did was not germane to the new trial. The Judge kept slapping the VirtnetX attorneys down for repeatedly referring to the previous judgement in the presence of the new jury, a big no-no. It got so bad he's declared a mistrial and now separated the cases. Apple may argue that THREE times on the same issues constitutes barratry, especially when it results in defending at four trials now.
Precedent applies to questions of law. Juries exist to consider questions of fact.