That's just as much Samsung's fault as it is Apples. They could have dismissed this guy or any other juror, possibly without giving an explanation, or they could have argued that he wouldn't be impartial.

It bothers me that we seem to be attacking the jurors as if they were appointed in this case via back-door-meetings between the government and apple. Didn't Samsung get the opportunity to interview the candidates? Were they allowed to remove potential jurors from the pool? If this was the jury they all agreed on then the people to be angry at is Samsung's pool of lawyers, not the jurors they selected (or rather, jurors they didn't dismiss).