Thursday, April 02, 2009

"Is zero dollars an option?"

That's what KOA just said the jury asked Judge Naves in the Churchill case. Naves said they had to have some sort of dollar amount.

Update: Another jury question (via KHOW): If one juror disagrees with the amount, can we get rid of him (or her)? Uh, no.

Silverman just mentioned PB!

Update II: C & S are predicting a verdict today. They also will have CU lead attorney Patrick O'Rourke will be one at 3:20. KHOW's live stream.

Caplis: Why didn't you play the tapes of Chutch's encouragement of terrorism.

O'R: Wanted to keep focus on research misconduct.

Silverman: You quoted Wart on the tapes. Why didn't you use the tape itself?

O'R: Again, didn't want to bring it back to a free speech issue. Might have "pumped up the volume of damages."

S: So you thought that would harm your case?

O'R: I didn't know . . .

C: Help us with procedural things. If they find for Churchill but award nominal damages, what are the consequences?

O'R: The judge has remedies, which include reinstatement, but if the jury comes back with nominal damages I don't think he'd get his job back.

C: Would a nominal award get D. Lane his attorneys fees?

O'R: Up to judge, but nominal damages might mean Lane gets only a little of his costs.

O'R sounds depressed.

S: What about the jury. Never seen one like that in Denver. How did that happen.

O'R: 17 jurors excused for cause by Lane; we had two excused for cause. The panel we ended up with was remarkable. . . Only two jurors raised their hands when I asked them if they'd be upset if they had a relative in the Twin Towers. Oldest juror was 36, youngest 19. We ended up with a panel that I knew (faced us) with severe challenges

S: Discouraged by jury questions?

O'R: I'm disappointed. . .

S: If they don't agree on damages, do they take half the damages . . .?

O'R: If it's a hung jury, we get to try it over again . . .

C: Seems to me CU had much more info they could have used. Art fraud, fake Indian . . . Do you think the outcome might have been different if you'd used that?

O'R: I don't think so. . .

C: Oh well, it's a tough gig . . .

S: Sure is . . . (plays Wart tape). You think they would have reacted favorably to Churchill if they'd heard that?

O'R: I thought if I started using that sound I was afraid the jury would think I'd given up on the research misconduct charges . . .

S: Couldn't you have made it clear that it was about his credibility Wouldn't the judge have let it in . . .?

O'R: I think you're right, Craig. The judge would have let it in . . . But again, thought it would prejudice the jury. . .

S: Lane tried to serve me with a subpeona to get me on the stand about collusion between CU and the media. . .

C: A nominal award would be a victory for you . . .

O'R: It would have been hard for me to say with a straight face that the investigation had nothing to do with the 9/11 essay . . .

S: Dan and I were jsut dumbfounded that DL didn't just defend WC, but urged the jury to reject the "master narrative" and that the TT vics deserved what they got. . .

O'R: DL did a good job of masking his hateful comments and try to make them seem intellectual. RttB very interesting . . . Mentioned the "Obama factor," tried to appeal to people who didn't go through 9/11 events . . .

No comments: