2006 MLRC/NAA/NAB LIBEL DEFENSE ... - Directrouter.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.h. Other factors:19. Results of Jury Interviews, if any:Ten days after trial, the jurors were invited by defense counsel to a reception (withfood and drinks) at one of the downtown Chicago hotels. Five of the “actual” jurors and oneof the alternates attended. At the time of the verdict, the jurors met with the judge and bailiffbut did not want to talk with the parties. They left by a private elevator.The Alternate “Renegade” Juror: The two alternate jurors did not receive a copy ofthe charge and instructions and were sent to a different room instead of being discharged atthe beginning of deliberations. One alternate with whom we have spoken said that she waspro-plaintiff and would have awarded him “several millions” for his time spent in developingand trying the case. (Note: she did not express any thought that he had been personallydamaged, just that he should be compensated for his time in bringing the case to trial over aperiod of five years – her husband is an attorney.) She did not care for reporter MauricePossley and was particularly offended by the paraphrase “keep your mouth shut.” In heropinion, Possley should have quoted the statement verbatim from the grand jury transcript.She felt that The Chicago Tribune was negligent because the research on the series had begun2½ years prior to the publication date and, therefore, there was no excuse for themisattribution mistake that Gorajczyk testified before the grand jury when it was admittedthat he had not – even though it was explained that the change in attribution was a mistakethat happened in the final editing just days before publication. She stated that it was amistake that she would not have made and that there was simply no excuse that she wouldaccept that would make her feel otherwise. She also stated, however, that her impressionswere based on a negligence standard and that had she been given the charge and theinstructions she would have followed them. This juror was also critical of one of the defensecounsel’s attempts to interject humor into the trial and thought he was smug and at timesdisrespectful of the plaintiff’s case [the other jurors interviewed had exactly the oppositereaction to the very same issues]. During the defense’s closing argument this same juror(who took copious notes throughout trial and was attentive and nodding to the plaintiffduring his closing) closed her notebook and physically turned away from defense counsel.The Foreman: The individual who was elected foreperson joked that he was chosenbecause he was in the restroom at the time of the selection. He also stated, however, that hehad not disclosed to the court (because he was not asked about his prior employment) that hehad been a paralegal with an intellectual property law firm in a previous job. The otherjurors found out about his legal experience and often asked him questions about the trialprocess and rulings during the trial.The deliberations on the general question took less than two hours. The specialinterrogatories caused a lot of discussion among them. One woman who the defense team42
For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.expected might be selected foreperson did “step-up” during deliberations and become a prodefenseleader.The Plaintiff: The actual jurors stated they had no sympathy towards plaintiffappearing pro se. Some thought he couldn’t get counsel to represent him and that he “put onan act” of being the little guy all by himself up against the Chicago Tribune Goliath. Theythought he wore outdated and worn clothes on purpose, was unorganized, wasted time, andshould have had someone help him but purposefully did not. Some stated they thought hehad a “fool for a client.” Some did, however, feel sympathetic towards him as the subject ofthe newspaper article just before his criminal trial. At least one juror thought that theplaintiff “clearly wants all the rules on his side.”Witnesses: All of the Chicago Tribune witnesses were viewed favorably. Inparticular, Possley had a great impact, as did the editor – both of whom admitted that amistake in attribution was made, their participation in making the mistake, as well as theirregret and remorse in doing so (interestingly, the pro-plaintiff alternate felt exactly theopposite about these two witnesses). All jurors were in agreement that defendant Armstrong,who co-authored the article but did not the write the portion about Gorajczyk, should nothave been in the case and wondered why the judge did not release him earlier than at theclose of the plaintiff’s case.Damages: The jurors interviewed all believed that there was no evidence that plaintiffwas harmed by the publication. 2 There was never a discussion about awarding him anything.They believed that his reputation was harmed by the indictment of the DuPage 7. The jurorsremarked that their decision was based in large part on plaintiff’s own answers to some of theinterrogatories about damages to his reputation and law practice caused by the article – towhich he answered “none.” They believed that he is a successful plaintiff’s attorney who hastried and settled many cases to his advantage and that his professional reputation was intact –especially in light of his website which touts his successes. They were also troubled by thefact that plaintiff did not provide any witnesses who would attest to any personal orprofessional harm due to the article. They were also perplexed by the fact that in closing,plaintiff did not ask for a specific sum of money but left it to them – as well as his plea forsubstantial punitive damages – again without stating a number. Finally, they wondered whyhe only sued The Chicago Tribune when there had been so many other articles, books, andtelevision stories about him and the Nicarico investigation and prosecution over the years.They felt he had singled out The Chicago Tribune and the two reporters.2 This was a big issue with the jury. Plaintiff tried the case on the theory that thestatement was libelous per se and that he did not have to present any evidence of damages toprevail. During discovery, he objected to and refused to produce documents and informationregarding his mental state, finances, his law firm practice, and anything that would approachactual damages. He did, however, respond to some interrogatories asking whether there hadbeen any harm to his reputation or career – which were displayed to the jury during trial.43
Page 2 and 3: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 6: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 15: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 94 and 95:
For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
show all

2006 MLRC/NAA/NAB LIBEL DEFENSE ... - Directrouter.com

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?