Chris Kyle trial: Jesse Ventura wins $1.8 million in defamation case

[NewsSource]

What exactly do you disagree with in my statement?

I disagree. I don't want to get into details. No worries.

 

[jlprk]

Borger said he called Chris Kyle's widow, Taya, with the news. "She was very surprised and very upset," he said.

During the trial, all daily pictures of her leaving showed her smirking at the camera, feeling superior to Jesse Ventura, treating the trial as a joke. Apparently she listened to her own self-promotion too much, just like her disrespectful husband, who had stretched other tales besides this one.

When the jury compromised on an 8-2 vote, it would have compromised the award, too. 80% of the jury probably wanted about $2.5 M, and 20% wanted 0, so $1.8M it was.

 

[NewsSource]

From Marcus Luttrell's FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/The.Offici...63643878405/10152351277668406/?type=1&theater

 

[jlprk]

If Jesse hadn't sued the wealthy widow, he couldn't have proven in a court of law that the self-promoting "fallen hero" was a liar. Read about some of the other tales the "fallen hero" stretched.

 

[Minstrel]

From Marcus Luttrell's FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/The.Offici...63643878405/10152351277668406/?type=1&theater

I disagree.

 

[RR7]

I disagree. I don't want to get into details. No worries.

then why bother responding?
I just don't see what I had said that is actually disagreeable, but whatever.

 

[barfo]

I disagree.

barfo

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Did defense attorneys for the estate of "American Sniper" author Chris Kyle make a strategic error in the final days of the Jesse Ventura defamation trial?

That's a question some court observers are asking after a split jury in St. Paul, Minn., awarded $1.8 million to the former Minnesota governor.

Under the usual rules, a federal trial in Minnesota ends in a deadlock and must be retried if a jury fails to reach a unanimous decision. But when the Ventura jurors failed to reach a verdict after several days of deliberations, defense and plaintiffs attorneys agreed to accept a split verdict, and jurors found 8-2 against the defense.

Speaking for Chris Kyle's defense team, attorney John Borger said Tuesday the verdict was disappointing and the team will evaluate their legal options in the case. Borger said he called Chris Kyle's widow, Taya, with the news. "She was very surprised and very upset," he said.

Asked if agreeing to a split verdict was a mistake, he said, "That was a strategic call that seemed appropriate at the time."

Others questioned their decision.

"I think it's a strategic error," said David Schultz, a professor of law and political science at Hamline University in St. Paul. "I'm surprised that the defense agreed to it."

Schultz said the defense had nothing to lose with a hung jury. If the jury couldn't reach a verdict, Ventura would have had to pay to retry the case. That could have cost him much more than $100,000 in additional costs.

http://www.oregonlive.com/lake-oswe...is_kyle_trial_did_defense_a.html#incart_river

Ouch . . . talk about second guessing a move. That decision could not have been easy. Defense must have been feeling confident about their case or figured the evidence was as good as it was going to get for the defense to accept a split verdict.

I disagree that the defense had nothing to lose by having a mistrial. The cost to the defendant to have her trial team re-try the case would probably be in the six figures . . . but obviously in hind site it was a bad call to agree to a split verdict.

 

[jlprk]

On the news every day, she smirked at all the conservative reporters smiling at her like, Why are we going through with this? But the pundits were wrong.

As usual, the conservative side thought that laughing at liberals causes conservatives to be in the majority.

As usual, conservatives lost, once it was taken out of the controlled media's hands and put to a vote.

She and her lawyers opted for the split verdict, confident that they would easily win, that you can kick around a famous liberal with a lie and get away with it.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

What I don't at all understand is how Ventura isn't considered a public figure. Didn't anyone else see The People vs. Larry Flynt? The Supreme Court has already decided this Ventura case, so I expect it to be reversed upon appeal.

If it isn't, that opens up a huge can of worms about how we as citizens can talk about public figures.

I thought the Larry Flynt trial was all about satire that wasn't intended to be believed. This is completely different.

 

[NewsSource]

I thought the Larry Flynt trial was all about satire that wasn't intended to be believed. This is completely different.

That's a good point, but the larger issue is whether or not a former wrestling/movie/TV star, who was also a governor of a state, is considered a public figure. George Zimmerman's case against NBC, where NBC even fired the producer who libeled Zimmerman by editing the 911 call, was thrown out of court without even a hearing. Why? Because the judge considered Zimmerman a public figure. Ventura is scum; I hope he's shunned for life by reasonable people.

As SPD posted, Kyle's attorneys made a horrible error by agreeing to a majority verdict. Just dumb on so many levels.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That's a good point, but the larger issue is whether or not a former wrestling/movie/TV star, who was also a governor of a state, is considered a public figure. George Zimmerman's case against NBC, where NBC even fired the producer who libeled Zimmerman by editing the 911 call, was thrown out of court without even a hearing. Why? Because the judge considered Zimmerman a public figure. Ventura is scum; I hope he's shunned for life by reasonable people.

As SPD posted, Kyle's attorneys made a horrible error by agreeing to a majority verdict. Just dumb on so many levels.

Seems like the issue there was also intent to deceive. Whether or not the person is a public figure is secondary.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/george-zimmerman-libel-suit-nbc-thrown-out

in her 15-page order, Nelson ruled that there is "no clear and convincing evidence that defendants knew that the information published was false at the time it was published, or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of those statements."

 

[VanillaGorilla]

 

[NewsSource]

in her 15-page order, Nelson ruled that there is "no clear and convincing evidence that defendants knew that the information published was false at the time it was published, or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of those statements."

I know what the ruling said, but NBC fired the producer that edited the tape to make it seem that Zimmerman was acting as a racist. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but then again, this is the exact same judge who presided over Zimmerman's murder trial.

 

[Sinobas]

He filed the lawsuit before Lyle died, his reputation was damaged by those accusations, and he needed to do what he could to clear his name. It doesn't matter than Lyle died.

 

[Sinobas]

If Ventura had won the lawsuit before Lyle died, should he have given the money back after he was killed? What if some con man stole a bunch of money from you, then was shot and killed, would you drop the lawsuit just because he had a widow? Oh here you go widow, keep my stolen money.