All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2022 - Depositions & Trials
40:27
VERDICT WATCH: Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit-Connecticut Trial Day Sixteen
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you very much.
We are in Lafferty versus Jones, week five, day Two of a full day of deliberations.
If Council can identify themselves for the record, please.
Good morning, Your Honor.
Chris Maddy, joined by Alan Osterling and Josh Toscoff on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Good morning, Your Honor.
It will take maybe five minutes or so.
Any housekeeping matters while we wait?
Nothing.
Can I see council on the side?
I love it when you can't.
Don't you?
Oh my God.
It's so amazing.
I'm going to put it in.
Do you?
Because we have to call.
Oh.
When you vote them.
When they come in.
Like for the verdict?
No.
You don't do it by number.
Can you assign it?
Is that by...
Yeah, I agree.
It could be that Mr. Farhams gives them a number and say we need some four-person perhaps being number nine and then we do that.
So is it poll the jury, the jury number, you asked them by name.
I'll have you just find a number with four-person number one and then I'll have them give you a number.
Great.
Okay.
Is that you, Mr. Ellis?
Go to you today.
Good, thank you.
Did you have a nice weekend?
I got out of my car.
I did.
I love that.
I parked way down on the corner.
And I was watching the – it started out at 9:30.
It started out at 9:34 when I got there.
And I was watching it like the estimate go down as I sped faster and faster.
Thank you.
I'm pretty talented.
I'm just like, you know, I think that's what people are doing, and then there was nobody there.
Bill, don't ask her.
She'll turn around and she'll see us again on each other.
She'll see how it's doing.
- I'll stay in the dark circles.
Dark sounds.
I think I'm going to want to ask one.
- I think I'm gonna want to ask the judge.
I think I'm going to ask the judge.
- Excuse me.
- I think I'm gonna want to ask the judge.
- Excuse me.
- I think I'm gonna ask the judge.
- I don't think that he's a judge.
- I think that he's a judge.
- I think that he's a judge.
- What do you think about it? - I think he's a judge.
- I think he's a judge.
Good morning.
Welcome back everyone.
Good morning.
Council will stipulate that our entire panel has returned.
We hope you all had a wonderful weekend, another glorious Connecticut fall day.
So you'll continue with your deliberations.
You will follow the same process with respect to any notes.
You've done it perfectly so far.
You'll continue to only deliberate in the jury deliberating room when all six of you are together.
Ron did not bring any note to my attention, but if anything does occur, you'll give Ron a note and we will deal with it with regard to any media exposure or any other issues along those lines.
You're welcome to take your morning break whenever you'd like and just, if you would, do your lunch today from 1 to 2 again since the staff would not be here to respond to any issues that you've had.
Okay?
So with that, Ron will take you into the deliberating room.
And if you need anything for your comfort, fresh water, or curings, you let Ron know.
Okay?
Take a recess.
Ron, now you're done.
Can you come see me?
Yes.
We're welcome.
I'll back.
Good morning again, Your Honor.
Good morning.
Please be seated.
All right, so we will mark the note that was received at 11.19 p.m.,
as a court exhibit and it reads exactly as follows quote on pages 17 and 21 parens of the charge and parens it is written quote you must attempt to put each plaintiff in the same position as far as money can do it that they would not That they would have been in had the defendant not engaged in the wrongful conduct, end quote.
Can you please clarify the meaning of this?
signed and dated by your foreperson.
I believe they were adequately and accurately charged as to the law, and that goes to the heart of the paradox.
In this case, there's no amount of money that will return them to an emotional distress claim.
The charge adequately states the law, and if there's a conundrum in it, it's for the jury to resolve it.
So this is obviously talking about compensatory damages.
Right.
I did, I just want to point out in the four minutes that I had, because it's very old language, when I just put it in Westlaw quickly, the phrase, it goes back to the U.S. Supreme Court 1875, and it's, I think it just gets, it's been repeated since then.
But certainly, do you want to take a recess for five minutes?
Can we have time to?
Absolutely.
So, let me ask you this.
Do you want to just let them wait and that's fine?
Do you want me to bring them out and tell them that we're working on it and this might be a good time for the morning recess?
Yes, I think that...
No, I'd rather wait because if we don't deliver a supplemental charge, then there was nothing to work on.
I mean, we're considering their charge.
Right, but since it seems to be so basic, I almost think it's better that they take their break and wait for us as opposed to try to continue to deliberate.
I think you can let them have their break without the expectation that they'll get a supplemental charge.
There may be nothing to work on.
All right, why don't we just tell them that we'll...
I think that's not a bad idea, that Ron can go in and say this is a good time for your morning recess and that they should take a 15-minute break.
That's a good idea.
So why don't we come back then at quarter of?
Does that work?
Yes, yes.
All right, so Ron, why don't you tell them that they can take their morning recess, okay?
Yes, Your Honor.
Thank you.
All right.
And here is the.
Yes, Your Honors.
So we've been thinking about the question that they asked.
That is a focus on some old language that, taken out of context, you know, it's boilerplate language that's been appearing in our charges forever, but taken in isolation, we think it could be just unhelpful.
Is the proposal to direct them to the other sections of the charge that there's more details?
Yes, exactly.
I have to say, it is archaic introductory language that probably is better suited for Personal injury case where there's like a physical injury.
Exactly.
But nonetheless, we include it every time.
Right.
So we think it's very important for the court to both indicate to the jury that when you read a charge, You read it in the context of everything in the charge and also that the more specific portions of the charge with regard to emotional distress damages and defamation damages are specific to this case
and so provide the most guidance for the jury.
Oh, okay.
And the other thing...
Can you just give me one second?
Sorry, Your Honor.
Ron, can you do me a favor?
Can you go get my charge?
Just give me one second, please.
Thank you.
okay yeah um
We also think, Your Honor, that it could be helpful to the jury to know that that's old language, to know that it is historic language or archaic language.
So, do you have an actual proposal?
And then I'll hear from Attorney Patti.
Yeah, our proposal would be, I think I want to add one sentence to it, but, so let me do that.
give me one moment your honor and then I'll hear from you attorney you
so so here's my
I have no doubt the court would shorten it.
But the portion of the charge that you have focused on is wording that has been...
Sorry.
That is...
Generally used in cases involving physical injuries and is historic language and may not be helpful to you here.
Each part of the charge in this case should be read in the context of the entire charge.
Uh, there are more general principles, like this one, that are included in the charge, and there are also more specific principles described that are...
Are you a little solid here?
Sure.
There are more general principles...
...that are included in the charge, and there are also...
more specific principles described that are particularly applicable to this case.
Your focus here should be on defamation slash slander damages and emotional distress damages.
as stated on the verdict form.
form.
Sorry, as stated in the charge and on the verdict form.
Honey Pattis.
I object to the overwhelming majority of what the plaintiffs proposed, but agree that the jury should receive further instruction.
I propose the following.
Just give me one second.
You are to consider the charge as a whole, not singling out particular words, phrases, or sentences.
Just one second, because I like this language.
Which I think we already said, but okay.
I direct you that the entire charge on damages is found at pages 17 through 22 of the charge.
I don't know if you want to hear objections as to the particular points Attorney Sterling raised.
I can do that if you like.
No, so can you just tell me if you, what were the page numbers again?
I have 1722. 17, the first full paragraph on the page says the rule of damages is as follows, and then...
All right, Ron, I need it now.
And then 20...
Don't we have one marked as a court exhibit?
Yes, it's in the city.
Okay, so I'm going to need a minute.
Why don't you go do that, and I'll wait.
Just, can you give me that language one more time?
I direct you that the...
Well, I didn't say that, but I... You are to consider the charge as a whole, not singling out particular words, phrases, or sentences, period.
And then I direct you that the entire charge on damages is found on pages 17 through 22 Let me just get a hard copy of that, and can I see you up here when you're done with that one?
You want mine, Judge?
No, no, that's okay, because I'm probably going to mark it up anyway.
Okay.
Just waiting for that to print, Your Honor.
Okay.
Do you have a printer in here?
It's in my office.
Okay.
In the meantime, did you want to say something else, Attorney Pat?
Well, just by way of objection to the various proposals that the plaintiffs raise, I think it's inappropriate to comment on the charge in such a way as to diminish any portion of it and to suggest that some of it is archaic or historic.
Vintage may have militated against including it here, but we have and I think it would be error.
To instruct the jury to place less weight on any particular part of the charge.
Also directing them to go to particular places in the charge that support a cause of action or whatnot I think is inapt.
This is the charge that everyone argued from, argued strongly and suggested in our arguments earlier that this might be a nominal damages case precisely for this reason.
We think that the plaintiffs Put on the case they chose to put on and essentially gave a punitive damages argument in a compensatory damages case, and this suggests the jury may be troubled with that.
And we think we are entirely within our rights to rely on that.
Attorney Starling?
Yes.
I think what the jury's telling us is that they're troubled by this particular sentence that appears on pages 17 to 21. And so it is important to respond to that concern.
And as the court pointed out, that language is archaic and taken in isolation.
It can be confusing.
Which is why I think it is important...
Well, let me just stop you there.
So do you agree, Attorney Pattis, that taken in isolation, it's confusing?
Which is why you are saying read the charge as a whole?
That's exactly why.
No, I think it's perfectly clear, but I'm saying that that's one element of the charge, and they need to consider the charge as a whole.
I'm just trying to get a yes or no on the taken in isolation, the language can be confusing.
Do you agree with that concept?
No, I don't.
If money can't do it, then money doesn't do it.
Thank you.
So my first question is, do the plaintiffs agree or disagree that damages are discussed anywhere besides pages 17 to 22?
Damages certainly go on to page 23, Your Honor.
And I have some hesitation to saying that's the entire damages charge.
Well, let's look at it now.
Okay.
Because I'm not going to, I don't want to represent that the entire, which is Attorney Pattis' proposal, that the entire charge on damages is found on pages 17 to 22. Right.
That's not the case.
I mean, I think there's just a threshold problem with doing that, Judge.
I just want to know first.
Okay, that's fine.
Punitive damages are discussed, but I don't think this question pertains to punitive damages.
Well, I know, but what you propose says, I direct you that the entire charge on damages doesn't just say a...
I mean, 23 includes another nominal damages thing.
I guess you could say 23. - All right, so I just wanna say if I were to say to them that the entire charge on damages is found on pages 17 to 23 now, that that actually is true. - As to compensatory that that actually is true. - As to compensatory damages, which is, yes.
I'm sorry.
As to compensatory damages, yes.
That's my view.
17 to 23.
It's for compensatory damages.
18 to 23.
18 to 24.
The charge is a damages charge.
I just have, as I said- Right, there's a lot of language in that charge that does not focus on- Right.
Compensatory damages?
Yep.
So there's, I mean, on page 14 in the description of defamation, there's some language about general damages or injury to reputation.
On -- I don't -- we don't -- we can include all the pages or There's nothing along with that.
Attorney Pattis was proposing with respect to compensatory damages 17 to 22. It looked like it would be 17 to 23. We could just list some of the pages and tell them, but it's up to them to review the charge to make sure that...
It's something we could do, Your Honor.
But I want an answer to the question first, if you don't mind.
So then I would say we would list 17. Sorry, sorry.
Yes, 14. 1516, which talks about causing reputational harm to the plaintiffs, invasion of privacy and emotional distress?
Our contention is that those pertain to causation rather than damages.
That's a separate question.
to stop what the jury's asked for.
So then 16 is burden proof.
As it relates to damages, that's a charge Attorney Patis requested.
But again, it's not responsive to the question.
But it is, Judge, because they're asking how to decide damages, so all of this is relevant to that issue.
They're not asking how to decide damages, they're asking about how to compute them.
But if we're going to parse the whole thing, just tell them to reread the charge then.
I mean, you know, because what's happening here is the one sentence potentially that it could militate in my chamber here.
This is what I'm considering.
Language along the lines of either sometimes or often Focusing on one or two sentences in isolation when considering a jury charge can be unhelpful or confusing.
Therefore, you should not single out particular words, phrases, or sentences, and you should consider the charge as a whole.
Then I was going to say, if you find this helpful, I can tell you that my review of the charge shows discussion of damages, I could say, throughout the charge and leave it to them.
I would propose that, and then if they have further questions, they'll tell us.
I think that might be the way to go.
We're telling them not to read it in isolation, that it can be unhelpful or confusing, which I find it extremely confusing, taken out of context like this, and unhelpful for sure.
We're telling them not to single it out.
To consider the charge as a whole and we're sort of directing them back to other language and the charge.
I think the charge as a whole language is probably better than going page by page in each of us selecting what you think serves our interest.
If they have additional questions, I think the court may want to say if you have additional questions, please let us know in regards to that effect.
That leaves the case in their hands where it belongs.
The one point that I think would be important to include is that there are some more general principles in the charge, and then there are specific principles applicable to this case.
I disagree.
They haven't asked for that.
They've asked for clarification of that, and I think referring to the charge as a whole is responsive to their note.
Well, I suppose I can say that my review of the charge shows both General and specific discussion of damages throughout the charge, something along those lines.
No objection to that.
I think if we could say general and specific principles applicable to this case in the charge.
Judge, we didn't charge any case but this case.
That's unnecessary surplusage.
All right, I'm going to leave it as both general and specific discussion of damages, and I'm going to invite them to come back with another question if they need more guidance.
I think that's, and they named very well many.
Your Honor, would the court be willing to identify this as a general principle?
I'm sorry.
Would the court be willing to identify this as a general principle?
There's no reason to direct the jury more than a request.
I agree with you, Attorney Patterson.
I'm going to leave it at this.
All right.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Please be seated.
The record will reflect that our entire panel has returned.
Thank you very much for your note and your penmanship and for following the procedure, dating it and signing it exactly right.
And I can answer your question as follows.
Focusing on one or two sentences in isolation when considering a jury charge can often be unhelpful or confusing.
Therefore, you should not single out particular words, phrases, or sentences, and you should consider the charge as a whole.
If you find it helpful, I can tell you that my review of the charge shows both general and specific discussions of damages throughout the charge.
If you have any additional questions on this issue, or any other issue for that matter, please follow the same procedure.
All right, Thanksgiving.
So I'm thinking that maybe stay put for, tell Ron to leave the courtroom open for five or ten minutes in case they come back with another note
Does that seem like a good idea?
Your policy.
Thanks, Judge.
Well, I've been wrong about leaving and coming back, so if I leave it open and come back.
All right, so we'll take a recess.
All right, Madam Monitor.
Quote, we would like to review the testimony of William Sherlock, please.
Signed and dated by the foreperson.
Mr. Farrer, do you have an estimate as to how long that testimony is?
Oh, look at you.
All right, so my thought process is to bring them in, tell them that we will have it queued up for them first thing in the morning, It's one hour and eight minutes, so we'll start up with that at 930. Okay, you want to get the jury?
Anybody have anything to add?
Judge, with respect to the notes, could you announce the court, the number of them as they're received?
We can ask Mr. Farrar to do that.
Just for note-keeping.
That's court exhibit five.
Well, no, actually, that is a zero note number six, which is according to the note number seven.
Okay.
Because the charge is in there number two.
Got it.
Okay.
I have another matter at 9.30, and now I'll be on the bench with this.
In the event we spill on Thursday, which is unlikely, I have an argument in New York City.
Can we start at 2?
I'm reluctant to have somebody who didn't attend the trial monitor this.
Why don't we hope that's not an issue.
Yeah, I hope it is, too.
I just want to be Good afternoon.
We're part of the jury.
Council will stipulate that our entire panel has now returned.
Yes.
Please be seated.
So again, follow the instructions to a T.
We are going to chew that up and have that ready for you first thing in the morning so that when you come out in the morning, you'll be staying for the playback of the testimony so that you can be in the morning.
So make sure you bring your water bottles or drink your coffee or whatever.
We're going to start at 945 tomorrow.
That's because I have another matter at 930 and I will be staying on the bench during the playback.
So we'll start at 945 tomorrow.
So you'll get here, you'll probably want to get here around 930. I know you know what the rules are.
You'll continue to obey the rules of juror conduct.
▲
Export Selection