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.
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.
No comments have been added yet.
