Mann vs. Steyn Isn't Over; Not By A Long Shot

Following the disgraceful verdict of the jury in the Mann vs. Steyn case is not anywhere near the end. There will, of course, be appeals and, assuming the case reaches the Supreme Court, there won’t a jury of DC bureaucrats and causeheads to instinctively vote for the climate guy with no facts, so the porpects are realtively good, But, even before the appeals there are motions being made by Steyn and team to throw the verdict out anyway. And, those motions are darned good.

Image by Edward Lich from Pixabay

Judith Curry links to those motions here and one, in particular, summarizes the essence of the cultural divide reveal by the case. It’s the Motion for a New Trial and here are the relevant sections (minus citations):

At trial Dr. Mann gave false testimony about his claimed loss of grant funding—testimony he knew was false. And his counsel elicited that false testimony, also knowing it to be false. They also showed the jury an exhibit with false grant amounts, which they knew was false. The falsity was huge…

This Court found that Plaintiff and his counsel knew the testimony and exhibit were false but sought to sway the jury with those falsehoods…

The misconduct, this Court said, was “stunning.” Id. at 41. This Court told Plaintiff’s team: “[Y]ou sort of have to own this problem. Because it was placed before the jury, the numbers, the $9 million. And you queried Dr. Mann on it. And it is your evidence, all of it.” But they did not own it.

Plaintiff’s team never recanted the false testimony and false exhibit. Nor did this Court make them own it. This Court never instructed the jury to disregard the false testimony and exhibit, and it denied the defense motion for an adverse inference instruction. Plaintiff’s counsel was free to, and did, make grant funding a feature of his closing argument.

As a remedy for this knowing misconduct, the Court should order a new trial…

Plaintiff’s counsel made highly improper and prejudicial jury arguments in his rebuttal. Counsel raised the issue of punitive damages and then told the jury “[t]hese attacks on Climate Scientists have to stop, and you now have the opportunity --.” At that point, both Defendants objected, and the Court immediately sustained the objection. At a bench conference, the Court then had this colloquy with Plaintiff’s counsel:

THE COURT: You received an admonition really from the Court of Appeals, Climate Science discussions, discourse are not part of this case.
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand.
THE COURT: And so you’re raising this, and the jury will think that Climate Science is the subject of this case. This is a defamation case.
MR. WILLIAMS: All right.
THE COURT: And I’m going to let you know once again, all right?
MR. STEYN: Before we -- Judge Anderson specifically told the Plaintiff that he does not represent Science.

Back on the record, the Court stated:

“The objection is sustained. Members of the Jury, this case is a defamation case. And, yes, as we’ve told you that there are aspects of the case concerning Science that sort of -- it’s an underlay or an overlay, but this case is not about the Climate Science, Climate Change debate. All right. So, it will be helpful if you keep that clear when you’re reviewing the facts. This is not a Science, whether there’s global Warming or not. That’s not the subject of this case. All right. And then with respect to defamation, I will give you the instruction once again.”

Although it sustained Defendants’ objections, the Court did not instruct the jury to
disregard counsel’s improper argument that “these attacks on Climate Scientists have to stop.”

…The Court of Appeals “has stated repeatedly that an attorney must not ask a jury to ‘send a message’ to anyone.” This is the law for good reason: “Juries are not in the message-sending business. Their sole duty is to return a verdictbased on the facts before them.”

…And the parties here agreed and represented to the Court that “Plaintiff will not present any argument or evidence related to any claim that the jury should ‘send a message’ through its verdict.”

Telling the jury “these attacks on climate scientists have to stop” was a forbidden send-a-message argument…

Counsel’s argument that “these attacks on climate scientists have to stop” was particularly egregious because both this Court and the Court of Appeals have repeatedly made clear that this case is not about climate science, let alone “attacks on climate scientists.”

…Indeed, this Court admonished Plaintiff’s counsel during his opening statement not to turn the trial into a case about climate change…

Counsel’s improper jury argument was prejudicial, no doubt about it. His insistence that “these attacks on climate scientists have to stop” inflamed the jury, which imposed $1 million in punitive damages on Mr. Steyn (and $1,000 in punitives on Simberg, despite his negative $200,000 net worth)—even though Mann had suffered only a $2 loss…

Counsel have a duty not to incite the “passion or prejudice” of the jury…

Violating that duty, Plaintiff’s counsel in rebuttal equated Defendants with “Donald Trump” and “election deniers”—“[t]he people who continued to deny that Trump los[t] the election” despite “overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

Counsel said “the same issue is true here.” And he offered this politically charged argument in support of his request for punitive damages. When counsel segued into his stop-the-attacks on climate scientists argument, both Defendants objected.

Comparing Defendants to Donald Trump and election deniers was an inflammatory— indeed, incendiary—appeal to politics and the January 6 violence. “Mr. Trump received only five percent of the vote in the District of Columbia in the 2020 presidential election” and “a mob of Mr. Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building—which is located in the District of Columbia—on January 6, 2021.”

Likening Defendants to Trump and election deniers in front of a jury comprised of District of Columbia residents was highly improper and surely prejudicial. It was also a nod to huge verdicts recently returned against Trump and a not subtle suggestion that this jury should do the same. The grossly excessive punitive award against Steyn indicates the improper tactic worked…

Counsel deliberately played the “Trump” card and put Defendants on par with “election deniers.” He appealed to D.C. residents’ deep antipathy to Trump and recalled the horrific events of January 6. That improper rebuttal argument, combined with his other ones, necessitates a new trial.

Readers can draw theur own conclusions, but these certainly seem to be powerful arguments in favor of throwing out the verdict. And, the judge in this case has such ability, just a Federal Court in Pennsylvania did several years ago with a ludicrous verdict against Cabot Oil and Gas. Will it happen? No one knows, given the extreme leftist D.C. political environmentbut, but it could and should happen.

#Mann #Steyn #Climate #Defamation