Churchill Wins: What it Was Like in the Courtroom

We got the “15 minute” warning that the jury had reached a decision shortly before 4:00 p.m., which was the signal for the court room to quickly fill, mostly with Churchill supporters and a reasonable number of press. Plaintiff’s counsel, staff and supporters were looking quietly eager, buzzing with suppressed excitement. Evidently the questions the jury sent out relating to damages had signaled a favorable verdict. CU counsel was somber, quiet, and only arrived in the courtroom just before the judge.

Judge Naves told those in the courtroom that when the verdict was announced he would tolerate no inappropriate reaction, which included applause or boos or other verbal expressions. The jury was then called, and the six filed in with somber, terse expressions. It looked like they had worked hard. The foreman passed the filled-out verdict form to the bailiff, who passed it to Judge Naves, who read it out loud. The audience behaved. If anything, there was the utter silence of a room full of people holding their breath and then trying to let it out quietly. Then quiet muttering, including a few indigenous prayers.

The by now well-known verdict was that Churchill proved with by a preponderance of the evidence that a majority of the CU Board of Regents used Churchill's First Amendment protected speech was a determining factor in his termination, and that that termination proximately caused him damage. The non-economic damages were valued at zero, and the economic damages at $1.00. Judge Naves confirmed that both sides had thirty days to submit motions.

The jury was told that they have the choice of speaking to the press about the trial. If they don’t want to talk to anyone, they don’t have to, and if they are pestered, Judge Naves wants to hear about it. They filed back to the jury room (which was posted with a hand-written sign “Cleaning Crew Do Not Enger At all – thank you”) and Naves joined them there.

Amidst quiet handshakes, hugs and tears, people filed out of the courtroom and the volume rose considerably. The press had set up microphones in the hallway, so Professor Churchill and his attorneys were hustled there and arranged in front of them. Churchill started by saying “It took a while, but the delivery was quick.” He then thanked all those who supported him, and all three of his attorneys. What’s next? “Justice takes the form of exposing the falsity of the University of Colorado’s position. Reinstatement follows rather naturally, wouldn’t you say?” Professor Churchill excused himself after a few words so that he could “go away and be silent for a while,” and he and his family left.

David Lane then spoke, answering press questions. Reinstatement is the preferred remedy, which will have to be ordered by Judge Naves and is one of the motions that Plaintiff’s counsel will submit. There will be a hearing on that issue, and Lane said that CU would have to convince the judge that the acrimony in the workplace is so severe as to be unworkable, and that is “clearly not the case.” Because this was a civil right suit, CU will have to pay Churchill’s “reasonable” legal fees, which will also be determined by Judge Naves.

When prompted, Lane complemented Betsy Hoffman for “having the courage” to stand up and tell the truth about the threats made to her as CU President by Governor Owens and various members of the Board of Regents. When asked who the best witnesses were, Lane replied “all those defense witnesses who were on the stand and were exposed as liars.”

The likely next move for CU, according to Lane, is to file a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which is a request to set aside the jury verdict. A Native American elder interrupted Mr. Lane during this press questioning to say, in an emotional voice, “Your words have honored the dead of Fort Clark. You have wrapped a blanket around the Constitution and it doesn’t have smallpox in it.”

Lane noted that only three CU professors—Emma Perez, Tom Mayer and Mark LeCompte—came forward to support Churchill. The rest “ran away and hid under their desks.”

When asked about the significance of the almost zero damages award, Lane said confidently that the jury gave Churchill exactly what he asked for; that he had never asked for money, only for justice and that is what they got. At that point the jurors were asking to speak with Mr. Lane, so he left. A court spokesman advised the press that five of the jurors wanted absolutely nothing to do with the press now or ever in the future, and one juror was still considering if she would speak with the press.

It is done for now, and we will cover the motions and hearing as they occur.

Comments

[Mike]

Trade Churchill w/Cutler.

[jason]

Aw poor Mike. It's loser night in Potemkin City.

[Maximilian Forte]

I wanted to say thanks and to endorse the well deserved praises you have received from other readers concerning your coverage of the entire case. This was the most in-depth and analytical of all the coverage provided by those in place, and it made an important difference. Compared to what I once knew as live court TV coverage on cable, this format and its particular authors are of another class altogether, and more preferable by very far.

Very best wishes, and congratulations on your own predictions of the outcome of the trial.

[Greg Scott, Denver]

This was a wonderful, clear, objective, and very helpful blog. You are to be highly commended for a great service to the community. Any effort that receives praise both from the anti-Churchill Pirate Ballerina as well as Churchill supporters must be doing something right.Thank you.

[thegeniusfiles]

Many thanks to all who helped Mr. Churchill obtain justice. I had hardly dared hope for it! Thanks to the people responsible for this blog; it was very informative and I really appreciate it. Let us all be inspired by this outcome, and conduct ourselves with the same fortitude and courage shown by Churchill.