Harold Kasselman's Blog

Dykstra vs. Darling

Ron Darling,former major league pitcher and current broadcaster, has just published a book about his time in baseball. Nothing new there, but it has gained some unfavorable notoriety. His book "108 stitches" could lead Darling to defend a defamation law suit brought by former Met and Phillies player Lenny Dykstra. Darling alleged that during game three of the 1986 World Series, Dykstra taunted Red Sox pitcher Dennis "Oil Can Boyd" with the most hateful and disturbing racial epithets that went beyond even what Jackie Robinson endured.
https://nypost.com/…/ron-darlings-tel...
As a result, Dykstra says he will sue Darling and his publisher for defamation. As the above article sets forth, many of Dykstra's teammates denied having heard the slurs or that the incident ever happened. Dykstra has to prove that Darling knew the incident was falsely told or that he did so in reckless disregard for the probability that it was false.But what got me thinking is, even if Darlings statements are false, what kind of damages could Dykstra possibly get if he won. It's no secret that Dykstra has been convicted of grand theft auto, and filing a false financial statement. Dykstra was named in the Mitchell report(named after former Senator George Mitchell) as being named as a steroid user while playing baseball. Wikipedia lists many other incidents of misbehavior including a car crash with an alcohol reading of 0.179 in 1991, a 1999 arrest for sexual harrassment on a seventeen year old(later dropped), In March 2009, press reports alleged that Dykstra's businesses were facing financial ruin and that he had used offensive terms when speaking about blacks, women and homosexuals.
In September 2009, he was banned from both of his foreclosed multimillion-dollar properties in Lake Sherwood, from which security officers were instructed to deny him access. He was accused of vandalizing the properties and not maintaining homeowners' insurance on them, and the court assigned a trustee to manage them.
In December 2010, Dykstra was accused of hiring a female escort and then writing her a bad $1,000 check: adult-entertainment star and escort Monica Foster claimed he had hired her on December 13, 2010 and then wrote her a worthless check. Monica Foster later posted a copy of the check on her blog.
In January 2011, Dykstra was accused of sexual assault by his housekeeper, who alleged that he would force her to give him oral sex on Saturdays. The woman told investigators "she needed the job and the money, so she went along with the suspect's requests rather than lose her job," according to the filing, and "returned to work in the suspect's home with knowledge obtained from the Internet about a claim of sexual assault by another woman."
On April 14, 2011, Dykstra was arrested and charged with bankruptcy fraud. The Los Angeles Police Department Commercial Crimes Division also arrested Dykstra on separate grand theft charges related to the purchase of vehicles. He was held on $500,000 bail
On August 25, 2011, Dykstra was charged with indecent exposure. The Los Angeles City Attorney accused him of placing ads on Craigslist requesting a personal assistant or housekeeping services. The victims alleged that when they arrived, they were informed that the job also required massage service. Dykstra would then disrobe and expose himself.[66]

On May 23, 2018, Dykstra was arrested after uttering terroristic threats and for possession of drugs. He allegedly held a gun to his Uber driver after the driver refused to change destinations.[67] On October 10, 2018 Dykstra was indicted by a New Jersey grand jury for cocaine and methamphetamine possession, and making terroristic threats
So with those things in mind, Dykstar to prevail and win damages must prove that he suffered an injury to his reputation or or which exposes him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to a loss of the good will and confidence felt toward him/her by others. Dykstra has to prove that Darling's conduct was a substantial factor in causing him material, economic or financial losses. Evidence of embarrassment, mental suffering or physical sickness will not, without more, entitle to these damages. So again, what economic damages has Dykstra lost as a result of this book to an already tarnished reputation? Of course there can be emotional damages but ONLY if it was a result of what it did to his reputation.
Lastly, there is always a chance for punitive damages. Those are imposed by a jury as a deterrence-to punish the publisher and Darling for their conduct and to deter others from that conduct. But the mere act of (making) (publishing) the defamatory statement is not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. The evidence must establish ill feeling, personal hostility or spite, or an actual desire to hurt Dykstra without belief or without any reasonable grounds to believe in the truth of the defamatory statements.
In conclusion, I doubt seriously that Dykstra will sue. It is my opinion that even if he does, he will not get a monetary reward.

Shocking revelation in Pete Rose case

In a shocking revelation Monday in Philadelphia federal court, John Dowd's defense team submitted testimony from a minor who said she had had multiple sexual encounters with Pete Rose. In his defense of the law suit originally filed by Pete Rose against famed attorney John Dowd, Dowd's team introduced testimony from Jane Doe( used for minors or to protect the identity of statutory rape victims) that she was 14 and 15 when the encounters occurred both in Cincinnati, Ohio and outside Ohio. Rose cannot be prosecuted for a crime because the statute of limitations has run out on any charges.
Rose had filed a civil lawsuit against John Dowd, former lead counsel for baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti, after Dowd had alleged on radio shows in 2015 that an intermediary for Rose had been "running young girls for Rose" whose ages were 12-14. Now Jane Doe has alleged that in 1973 she began her illicit relationship with Rose.
Rose, through his lawyer, has acknowledged the relationship with Jane Doe but has maintained that she was sixteen at the time. The legal age of consent in Ohio in 1973 was sixteen which would mean that, even if it were morally repugnant to some, it was not a crime. Rose was married with two children at the time and was about thirty four.
Now the Philadelphia Phillies ownership has a dilemma because they have previously scheduled an induction day for Rose to be on the Phillies Wall of Fame on August 13th. That begs the question whether ownership will cancel the money making big payoff for the team. It's anyone's guess, but I think it will be postponed.
Post script: On December 17th 2017 both parties came to an agreement which disposed of the suit by dismissal. It was done right before Rose was to be deposed by Dowd's lawyers. The dismissal was with prejudice which means it cannot be resurrected. The court ordered the terms of the agreement sealed so we will never know the details.

Pete Rose sues John Dowd

In yet another interesting law suit involving a baseball star in the last two months, (Mitch Williams won his case against the MLB Network) Pete Rose will face off against John Dowd. Dowd is currently representing President Trump in the Russia collusion probe. But more importantly, Dowd was Special Counsel to former baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti in his investigation of the gambling scandal which led to Rose's banishment from baseball for life. Dowd had led the investigation which resulted in a 225 page report filed in 1989 which Giamatti relied upon.
Yesterday a Philadelphia federal judge ruled that Rose's claim for defamation against Dowd was legally sufficient to move forward. Rose is claiming that his reputation was defamed by Dowd's words during two radio interviews in 2015. In one with Jim Rome, it is alleged that Dowd claimed that a gambling intermediary friend of Rose was also “running young women down in Florida for his(Rose's) satisfaction.” In another radio interview it is alleged that Dowd claimed that this same intermediary was running girls under the statutory age for legal consent; namely that the girls were 12 to 14.
If that were true, each occasion would have been a criminal offense. As such, the words are said to be libelous or defamatory per se. In other words Rose need not prove that Dowd's words would have hurt his reputation; they are presumed to be defamatory by their very nature.
Lawyers for the intermediary have denied as early as August of 2015 that any such "running" of young girls ever took place. They have also denied that the intermediary ever told such things to John Dowd.
No date has been set for trial of the matter. Depositions and other pre-trial matters will take place.

Jury Verdict in Wild Thing's suit against MLBNetwork

A jury deliberated for under three hours in the civil suit of Mitch Williams vs. MLB Network. The jury of eight split 6-2 in favor of the plaintiff in his breach of employment contract case. They awarded Williams over 1.5 million dollars. The jury was 7-1 against Williams on whether he deserved damages for his option year which could have meant an additional $700,000.
This ends the three year saga that began in a Mother's Day tournament in 2014 and ended a few minutes ago. It remains to be seen if Williams will be able to obtain employment as an analyst for baseball teams in the future. He now resides in Texas. While the award seems like a lot of money, it is subject to substantial legal fees, and federal taxes.

Summations and jury charge in Mitch Williams vs. MLBNetwork trial

The defendant MLB Network began its summation by telling the jury that they had just one simple question to answer; namely did Mitch Williams commit any act that violated the morals cause(section 1503) of his contract? Peter Hughes argued that, rather than foster youth baseball, Williams had "created a tension convention" in which he made a spectacle of himself during a 10 year old little league tournament in May of 2014.
Hughes enumerated the various act(s) that would justify the jury finding that Williams had placed himself in public contempt, ridicule, or scandal, or had put himself in public disrepute. And therefore he had reduced his own commercial value and that of the network itself if he had not been fired.( see other blog posts for specifics) He told the jury the fact that Williams was unable to obtain employment for 30 months after the firing was proof that the bad publicity tainted him and the network. He argued that Williams had made the weekend a bad experience for all who attended by constantly badgering, berating, and threatening to get the umpires fired. He said the umpires gave Williams too much leeway until they finally ejected him.He emphasized that a then 10 year old catcher for the opposing team(Titans) heard Williams turn towards the opposing pitcher and say that the Titans pitcher was a "pussy" for not throwing his son(Williams') a fastball rather than curve ball. That child, now 13, did testify at trial.
Then the attorney used a circumstantial evidence theory to prove that Williams had ordered his own son(the team's catcher) to tell his pitcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. No one directly testified that they were told or heard Williams order the bean ball. Neither side called Williams' son or the Jersey Wild pitcher. He showed video of the game. He argued that the Titans pitcher had stepped on the first baseman's foot running at first base and that Williams' son threw down his helmet in disgust. This was also after the Titans' pitcher had struck out Williams' son the prior inning on a curve ball which Williams took exception to, and caused further tension. The video show Williams talking to his catcher(his son) between innings and the latter goes to the mound to talk to the pitcher. The attorney argued the two boys then glared at the opposing pitcher who was getting ready to bat and then looked at Williams. The batter went down the third base line to talk to his coach and told him, "I'm going to get hit." On the very first pitch the batter got hit by the pitch and raised his arms as if to say, I told you". Hughes argued Williams had lied on the stand when he said he merely told the catcher to pitch inside because he had hit a double on an outside pitch earlier. Hughes reminded the jury that the batter had actually grounded out. Hughes said that even if he had merely said pitch him inside or move him off the plate, that was reckless indifference in view of the hit batter by the same pitcher a day earlier. Hughes summed up Williams' testimony and case by suggesting Williams would have you believe everyone else lied except Williams. He also reminded the jury that the weekend events were reported in Deadspin(then the most widely read sports blog), The NY Daily News, Bleacher report, USA Today, SI, and caused harm to the network which justified the firing. He said the defense should not be faulted monetarily for not firing Williams for a month. While he said they were foolish, they were trying to work out some compromise to allow Williams to stay under three conditions. He also argued that it would be absurd to award Williams damages for the 2016 option year because no network would have kept him after the publicity.
Williams' attorney Laurie Mattiocchi hammered away at the burden of proof that the network to not only prove the acts but also to prove they were significant enough to warrant termination. She went through the allegations in the lawsuit one by one. She emphasized that there was no "profanity laced tirade" as was portrayed by the defense. She emphasized that based on the testimony even the two umpires gave inconsistent versions of the nature of the profanity, when it occurred, whether it was during or before and after the game, and whether children heard it. Despite the allegation that her client called an umpire a mother f****er, she said not even one parent heard it nor did the home plate umpire. She said the audio and video of the games contradicted the defense claim as well. She hammered away at the lack of evidence presented by the defense-no parents heard anything or saw Williams bump the umpire. No one brought in cell phone recordings of the game to support the defense.
Regarding the "pussy" allegation, she said the sole witness at trial was a 10 year old who may have thought he heard something like it and that by "suggestion", he may have believed that it was actually said. She reminded the jury by video that the umpire and coaches were close to the child when he said he heard it and yet neither the umpires, coaches, or parents testified to corroborate the claim. Furthermore, she argued from the video that even the youngster was not close enough to have heard it said. She also called out the defense for promising in its opening that they would call two children when in fact only one testified.
On the bean ball she argued that it was a "conspiracy theory" without substance. No witness testified to what was said, despite close proximity of the umpire, and she pointed out that the plate umpire did not feel it had been an intentional hit by pitch.
She also reminded the jury of the testimony of one Titans player's parents who said he heard one or more of the Titans coach say "they will bury Mitch." He also asked the coach(s) to retract what they had said to Deadspin (if in fact they had) because it was not true. She argued that if the act(s) had been so repugnant, why had the network allowed Williams to work the few day after the weekend. And why had they been trying to amend the contract to permit Williams to remain on air if the acts had put Williams in public disrepute?
Finally she urged the jury to find that the network was reasonably likely to grant Williams an option year based on the fact that the CEO Anthony Pettiti had given Williams a $50,000 bonus in 2010, had exercised an option in 2011 to extend the contract and was willing to amend the contract rather than fire him. It was only after Williams had retained her as counsel, did the network fire her client she argued.
Judge Michael Kassel, Camden County Superior Court charged the eight person jury that the network had the burden to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence(51% rather than beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence). The parties agreed to keep the eight jurors rather than drop it to six with two alternates as is their choice. The parties agreed that six of the eight must agree either way for a verdict. According to the judge, the amount of contract damages exceeds 1.5 million dollars. If they jury adds the option year, the damages would be over 2.2 million. The jury will deliberate tomorrow.

MLB Network wraps up its case against Mitch Williams.

The defense team for the network called Brett Curll, assistant director for Ripken baseball to testify today. He was the May 9-11 tournament director in 2014. He was called down to the playing field by the stadium's announcer during Saturday's game. The announcer said one coach was very upset by a call and was afraid it might get out of hand. He thereafter watched the game and observed Williams, the coach he was advised about. This was after a disputed play at home plate. At one point Curll went down onto the field because of a commotion created after Williams was ejected. He saw the umpire walking away from Williams into centerfield. Williams was yelling that the umpire should be fired because the umpire had offered to fight him in the parking lot. He went further and said he would not leave the field until the umpire was fired. Curll warned Williams that he would forfeit the game against Williams' team unless he left the game. He then began to escort Williams to the parking lot but the game ended in the interim so he allowed Williams to go back with his team and gather his things. Curll said he and two other officials allowed Williams to coach the next day because he had only had an opportunity to briefly ask the home umpire Joseph Addis what occurred. He learned that Williams was ejected for arguing a call at the plate. When he later gathered facts from the other umpire, and from what he heard and observed, he felt the ejection had been justified and warranted a one game suspension. He also told the eight person jury that grounds for ejection include badgering an umpire, profanity, personal attacks at an umpire or player, and bad behavior. He did later hear from coaches and parents from the Pirates team that objected to Williams being permitted to coach Sunday's game against the Titans. He was told on Sunday by the Titans head coach that there had been prior incidents between the Titans and Wild teams and asked Curll to watch the game.
Curll cautioned Williams early in the game because the latter was yelling to his batters what pitch the opposing pitcher was about to throw as the pitcher was winding up to throw. Curll explained that was poor sportsmanship because it disturbed the pitcher and that Ripken baseball seeks good sportsmanship. During the game, he was told by the Titans coach that Williams had called the Titans pitcher a "pussy", but Curll could not verify it with either umpire and Williams denied it. He said the game was intense because fans were yelling across the field at each other. Curll left for a few minutes but when he returned the Titan coach was furious that his pitcher had been hit by a pitched ball. Curll testified that Titan coaches said they heard Williams order the catcher to tell his pitcher to deliberately hit the batter. Curll asked both umpires but they didn't feel it was an intentional hit by pitch. The game became unruly after that incident. Curll did testify that he heard Williams curse during the tournament when the two were talking in the dugout. Williams said "Why the fuck would I call a kid a pussy?". Curll cautioned Williams that a kid might walk up to them and hear the cursing. He also asked Williams whether he said during warm up words to the effect of "why would a fucking ten year old be throwing a curve ball?" Williams admitted he said it, but only under his breath and not loud enough for anyone else to hear. On cross examination, Curll admitted that the ejecting umpire also cursed with children nearby. Curll testified that the umpire accused him of taking Williams' side and "that was fucking bullshit". He also said that the umpire was suspended for his remark about challenging Williams to a fight. He did not hear Williams use the word asshole or bastards towards the umpires, but he recalls Williams asking, "Why the fuck are they throwing me out when the umpire threatened to beat me up." The legal team for Williams pointed out that umpire Addis didn't tell him about Williams cursing nor did he put that in his incident report.
Then Bill Ripken testified for the defense. he is co-owner of and founder of The Ripken Foundation. He is the brother of Hall of Famer Cal Ripken(co-owner). He said the foundation was created to give those millions of young children the chance to play on a field that is much like a major league baseball field. He described The Ripken Way as creating an atmosphere where baseball is taught in a fun way, simply, and to celebrate each individual's capacities. He is in his ninth year as an analyst for the MLB network. He began the same day as Williams-January 2009. Ripken was emailed after the Saturday game by one of his Ripken officials and Ripken forwarded it to Lorraine Fisher of MLB Network as a precautionary act. Once he did that he was "all good-I'm out. At first he did not think it was a big deal but later reversed his opinion when he viewed the video and got complaints from parents and coaches. He watched the video with Williams and told the latter he was concerned about the length(described as seven minutes) of the argument over the ejection He gets concerned about any coach ejection because parents pay a lot of money for the chance to participate and an ejection diminishes the value of the experience. He also gave an opinion that it is rare for a ten year old to be able to control a ball to the point that he can pitch effectively inside.
On cross Williams' attorney pointed out that Ripken makes a lot of money from the 2,500 teams that play at the stadium and that bad publicity can devalue the tournament; that Brett Curll is his employee, and that Bill Ripken is employed by MLB Network. The suggestion is that he would have a bias or interest in the outcome of the case.
The testimony today was limited by legal arguments over the charge to the jury and other legal matters. Closing statements will occur Monday at about 11:30.

Mitch Williams Vs MLB Newtwork testimony

It is anticipated that the judge in the Williams vs. MLB Network may charge the jury at the end of the day. If so, they have to decide if there was a wrongful termination and if so, what are the damages. During Williams' testimony his counsel brought out his salary for his five year contract plus the one year option year. This was elicited so the jury would have a basis to determine how much money to find he should recover if he was wrongfully terminated. The salary as I remember,was to be:
Contract year November through October 2014 was $625,000. (he was fired June 26th, 2016). For the following twelve months, $650,000. Then the next year would have been $700,000. The option year was to be $750,000. Currently Williams is working for a Mt. Laurel, NJ company called Raymond Transportation. He is a corporate liaison whose job is to get new business for shipping freight on long haulers. His salary is $84,000 per year without bonuses. Williams now resides in Texas.

MLB Network calls key umpires against Mitch Williams

Attorneys for the MLB Network played a video recording of a deposition given by Joseph Addis Sr., a former purchasing director for three large corporation. The deposition was given January 2016 (He was also cross-examined by Williams" attorney)to testify about the events of the Mother's Day weekend little league tournament in 2014. Among other things, he stated that over his decades-long career as a certified umpire for the little league, he had only ejected fifteen to twenty people, and only three coaches. But in describing the ejection of Williams during the Saturday game, Addis said Williams was "the most out of control manager I've ever been associated with."
He detailed the basis for that opinion by the following:
1. Even before the game began, Williams said out loud, in reference to the opposing team's pitcher who was warming up, "Look at that little fucker throwing a curve ball." Addis said he said it twice more and was asked by the other umpire to refrain from such language. (He explained that since the game had not officially begun that they didn't feel he had jurisdiction to eject him at that time). Williams shrugged and walked away. Addis had never heard of Mitch Williams until the start of the game when Williams "was bragging he had been a major league player." Addis said the Ripken tournament begins with an announcement about the importance of good sportsmanship. Despite that, while giving the coaches ground rule instructions at home plate, Williams had his back turned, and did not shake hands with the two umpires or opposing coach as is the custom.
2. Williams made loud complaints about balls and strike from the very first pitch through the fifth inning and that the Wild fans took their subsequent tone from their coach.
3. That there was a controversial play at home plate when a Wild player slid home. Addis hesitated for a couple of seconds and then called the runner out. Williams ran down from his coaching box at first base and told him in a strenuous outcry, "You don't know what you're doing! I remember you from last year". (Addis testified he had not even been an umpire the prior year) In a voice more loud than he had ever heard from a coach, Williams continued, "I'll have your job for this....it's what I would expect from Ripken baseball." He then yelled into the crowd to a woman, "You have the camera on don't you?" We'll get his job. he said Williams lost perspective and he argued for 5-10 minutes. Finally Addis issued a warning to Williams.
4. After he tried to walk away the other umpire Scott Bulwicki tried to come between them. Addis heard Williams say "bastards".Bulwicki took exception to the threat to have him lose his job and then ejected Williams. The latter got in the face of Bulwicki, so close that spittle from Williams inadvertently hit Bulwicki. Then Williams chest bumped Bulwicki and pushed him with the chest. When other coaches came on the field, he told them that he was going to forfeit the game and award it to the Pirates unless Williams left. When a Ripken tournament representative came on the field, Williams left, but not before yelling "fuckers as he left the field.
Addis said he had never heard of Williams before the game, was not biased, and was never disciplined in his career as an umpire.
On cross examination he said there was not just one reason for the ejection but rather a cumulative effect. But he did say cursing itself would have been reason enough. he denied hearing an words between Williams and Bulwicki regarding a challenge to fight. he admitted that Williams' statement about the opposing pitcher pre-game was not directed to anyone in particular.
Next a video deposition was played of 53 year old burly Scott Bulwicki. He had retired as a longshoreman at the Port of Baltimore at age 42 and worked as an umpire for many years. Bulwicki, who reminded me of actor Gary Bussey in his looks, supported what Addis had said regarding the nature of Williams' behavior and also described it as the worst ever. He had only ejected three coaches in his life. He said the personal abuse he and Addis took regarding the threat to his job was his major basis for ejection. He said Williams yelled it to the crowd and to him and bragged that "You don't know who I know, and this is what you get for $14-15 an hour. You are both going to lose your jobs tomorrow."
He reiterated the statement about the "little fucker throwing a curve ball(opposing pitcher) while warming up. But bulwicki went further and said Williams had used curse words every inning including mother fucker towards him and 'fucker" several times. He quoted Williams as saying that call(at home plate) "was fucking crazy".
On cross, Williams' attorney got the witness to admit he had been suspended for seven weeks by the Ripken officials and therefore lost a considerable amount of money. The thrust of the cross was to suggest that the witness was out for revenge and was exaggerating the behavior and piling on and fabricating cursing which didn't exist. The defense led the witness down the rosy path to a point where he was backed into a corner. "If he was calling you an asshole and mother fucker during the game, why didn't you eject him before the 5th inning?' The witness could only respond that he gives more leeway to teams from New Jersey and NewYork because it's a different culture than down in Maryland.
On Friday, former major league player and current MLB analyst(brother of Cal Ripken) is expected to testify as well as Brett Curl a Ripken representative. Then there will be closing arguments. It is significant that neither side called as a witness the son of Williams or the pitcher for the Wild.

Mitch Williams trial against MLB Network continues

Mitch Williams trial against MLB Network continues

The attorney for Williams called two female parents of little leaguers on Williams' team ( Jersey Wild) yesterday to contradict the MLB Network's allegations. Both attended the May 10 and 11 tournament games at the Ripken field in 2014. They denied hearing any improper language from the coach Mitch Williams. A male witness, a parent of the Olney Pirates team testified that he heard the Pirates' head coach say, after the alleged "pussy" calling incident, that the coach was going to bury Mitch Williams. The plaintiff Williams rested their case.
The lawyer for the Network called as its first witness the 13 year old catcher for the Jersey Titans, the opposing team in the Sunday game against the Jersey Wild. He testified to the events of that day when he was just ten years old. He said he heard Williams talking in the dugout to his own team. He heard Williams call his friend the Titan pitcher a "pussy". He did not say that Williams said it to him directly, but it was loud enough for him to hear it clearly, and Williams turned towards the pitcher when he said it. The 13 year old also testified that he had an autographed baseball signed by Williams that he gave to a teacher because he was so upset about what Williams had said about his friend. The next witness was the Public Relations MLB Network employee Lorraine Fisher. She verified that former MLB Network President Anthony Petitti told Williams to view video of the games played during the Mother's Day weekend Ripken tournament in 2014. While in her office, she said Williams watched the video and got very loud and said "Fuck the Ripken Tournament." She was so upset that she cried as a result of the outburst. Williams later apologized and said he had been frustrated because he didn't see anything that would have justified his termination.

Mitch Williams Wild thing testimony against MLB network

The defense(MLB Network) cross-examined Mitch Williams Tuesday in an effort to paint him as anything but "trying to create a good atmosphere for kids". Williams coached his son's team the Wild Things against the Titans.
The major thrust of the cross was an attempt, through circumstantial evidence, to prove that Williams had indeed ordered his pitcher to hit the opposing pitcher when the latter batted. The motive was allegedly retaliation for acts done during the game; in other words it was part of the code or unwritten rules of baseball. The defense reminded the jury through his questioning of Williams that the latter had said he had told his own pitcher merely to pitch the child on the inside part of the plate because the opposing pitcher had hit a scorching double the prior at bat. But defense counsel played video of all of the at bats of the opposing pitcher. The prior at bat was a hot grounder to third for an out. That contradicted Williams' version of why he had told his own pitcher to throw inside and jam the batter rather than pitch outside. The defense ridiculed Williams for a faulty memory despite the testimony of Williams on direct that he had "almost a photographic memory of baseball games." Then the defense effort was to paint a portrait of an irate team and their coach Williams because of the play of the opposing pitcher. By playing the video of the game, counsel pointed out that two innings earlier the opposing pitcher had tried to leg out a ground ball and stepped or spiked the first baseman's foot.(A Williams player). The video shows Williams' son the catcher seemingly annoyed at the play and seemingly gesturing while other of his teammates gathered near first base near the opposing player that had either stepped on or spiked their first baseman. At the end of the inning the video shows Williams talking to his son while they walked into the dugout. The next inning Williams' son strikes out on a curve ball and seemingly stares at the pitcher. When the Titans come to bat, video shows Williams talking to his catcher and then his son(catcher) goes to the mound and talks with the pitcher. They look towards the dugout. Then the opposing pitcher comes to bat. He first goes down the third base line and tells his coach something and steps to the plate. It is anticipated the child will say that he told his coach he suspected that they were going to hit him with a pitch. When he is hit, he gestures with outstretched arms as if to say, I told you so.
Williams adamantly denied he was "trying to send a message" by hitting the opposing pitcher. He maintained he would never hurt a child or try to do so. Moreover defense counsel suggested through questioning that Williams called the opposing pitcher a "pussy" in between innings after his son struck out on a curve ball. He suggested it was in retaliation for making his son look bad and for stepping on the foot of the Wild Thing first baseman. Williams again laughed off the suggestion but did say the Titan pitcher should not be throwing curve balls at age ten.
Then a large portion of the day centered around Williams' behavior or innocence regarding his reason for being ejected in the first game on Saturday May 10th. Williams again denied cursing but did admit after some lengthy questioning that he regretted arguing for 7-8 minutes and that he should have left sooner. Still, he denied that he cursed at the umpire and the video does not contradict him. But he did admit telling a parent in the stand that he would find some other job for the umpire in the future. That was the apparent reason for the ejection since the umpire said "are you threatening me?" He then got very close to Williams and the latter said, "what are you going to do, beat me up?" The umpires replied "anytime, anyplace, anywhere." At that point another umpire interceded as did other coaches to break up the argument. Williams alleged that he merely responded to a threat by the umpire.
In a similar vein the defense attempted to show that Williams had an unsuitable temperament to coach ten year old children. Williams admitted replying to an email from one of his player's mother regarding a game in early May. In response to the question, "how did you do in Friday's game?", Williams said, "the asshole umpire called strikes that hit the ground. It was all I could do to keep from hitting him after the game-we lost 3-0." But in his explanation, Williams said he was merely talking to an adult about how he felt but would not act on it.
Similarly, Williams admitted writing another email to a parent I which he said "come fall, another mother's son won't be on the team if his mother doesn't shut up." Williams again explained that he had had a long standing relationship with that mother and that it was not what it seemed to be.
Then the defense asked Williams whether it was true that he had accused a son of Craig Yates of betraying Williams by going with another team after Williams had given the child individual coaching. Williams admitted that was true.
But then the plaintiff(Williams) attorney brought in two witnesses to support Williams' account of the weekend tournament. Corey Ahart, a New Jersey attorney and part-time municipal judge testified that he was an assistant coach for the New Jersey Wild(Williams' team), had known Williams as seriously caring for the safety of the children, and had gone to the aid of opposing team's children when necessary. Ahart coached both games of the tournament. He denied ever hearing Williams curse to the umpire or use the word "pussy". He supported Williams' testimony regarding the ejection as well. On cross, Ahart admitted he wouldn't necessarily have heard what was said near first base since he was in the dugout. He maintained he did not know the reason for the ejection of Williams and didn't know what Williams may have told his son about throwing inside or worse. But he would never believe Williams would do such a thing.
The next witness, a senior VP at Morgan Stanley Craig Yates testified similarly to Ahart. He was also an assistant coach for the Wild, and said he could hear from third base and that Williams at first base had not cursed. He is a good friend of Williams and often played golf with him and John Kruk a former ball player and current color man for the Phillies broadcasts. He said he never heard Williams curse at any game and that if he had heard anyone direct a pitcher to hit a batter, he would have left the field. On cross, Yates admitted that he had loaned Williams $135,000 after his termination on an interest free basis. The defense implied that it was in Yates' interest for Williams to win his trial so that the loan would be paid back, and therefore had a motive in the outcome of the case.
The plaintiff will call another witness tomorrow and the defense will begin.