Topic: Jury: Ventura Verdict - Wins $1.84 Million (Read 968 times)

Obviously, this is not an open and shut case or the jury would have been back by now.  At least one of the jurors believes Ventura.  At least.

I think he's kind of a weasel myself, and I never voted for him, but I also think he was slandered and lied about by Kyle in order to sell more books.  Whether that translates into any damages or recovery is another question, but . . .

I really think that is beyond what should be expected of jurors, frankly, and borders on abuse.  30 hours of deliberation isn't enough to recognize they simply canNOT come to a consensus?  Really?  How long is he going to keep them, another 30 hours?  Strange and, as I say, bordering on abusive.

You think he can force them to come to a verdict?  Really?  That's really not possible.

It is not unusual, like I say for judges to ask jurors to go back and give it one more try.  It sometimes does result in a jury verdict.   But I would be really surprised if he kept the jury going for much longer, and surely cannot ORDER them to come to a verdict.  That's impossible, frankly.

Ventura is a scumbag...hope he doesn't get a cent from the widow and he should pay all court costs.  Then go hide in the Northern Minnesota wilderness never to be heard from again.

I'm not talking about the judge sending the jury back to try again, I'm talking about the judge telling the jury they cannot be hung.  Reconsidering that statement I suspect it was just part of the jury instruction in order for them to return a verdict instead of telling them they can't be split.

He didn't order to them to come to one conclusion.  He told them to keep trying, which  is perfectly legal and very common for a judge to do. 

Two suggestions.
1)  read the post to be sure what the judge did or did not ask them to do.
2) do a little homework about something so simple rather than just allowing your stream of consciousness to make you look stupid.

Strictly the judge's call, but it is not uncommon for the judge to ask the jury to give it another shot before throwing in the towel.  A lot of time and money is invested in the trial.

I would think after this long deliberation, the likelihood of them coming to a verdict is very small, and I'm a little surprised the judge did that, sent them back again.  But I would guess he will dismiss them at the end of today if they don't reach a verdict.

What I've seen this story do is give nostalgia to those military supporters that were pro-Iraq war before it was obvious what a farce it was. Suddenly, Ventura is some bad guy to telling it like it is to some sniper in a bar and the guy loses his cool and goes at another retired SEAL which should never have happened. You respect your retired peers in such elite units.

Actually Chris Kyle's book wasn't selling at all and he brought out the whole story of him punching out Ventura on the national TV circuit to pump up interest and it worked.

If her husband illicitly gained the money by slandering Ventura, why does his widow deserve his money? Jessie Ventura served as well, not just as a Navy SEAL, but as a governor. Why is his service less important because he is a public figure? You may or may not like Jessie Ventura, but this is clearly a slander campaign and I hope Ventura gets the result he is looking for. I remember when this whole ordeal originated, Kyle went all over talk shows calling Ventura out. I have a hard time believing any former Navy SEAL would say such things. Also people forget there was a rumor he would run for president at the time as a VP to Ron Paul. That is plenty of incentive to slander Ventura in an attempt to ruin his political aspirations.

Sure.  It could be split in half, or any combination thereof.

Just read the article that explained that in this very unique circumstance, indeed a unanimous verdict is required.  I've done lots of jury trials -- mostly criminal -- where unanimous verdicts were required, and a jury instruction to the jury in criminal trials goes something like, "You may have served on juries in civil matters where you can return a so-called fractional verdict.  In criminal cases, verdicts must be unanimous."  The handful of civil trials I've done have all been non-unanimous verdicts.

Well then, I guess the judge needs to go back a read the law.


But U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle told the jurors to “give it one more shot” and asked them to resume deliberations, noting that his instructions required a unanimous verdict.

Luckily most jurors put aside their personal opinions of the plaintiffs and defendants and decide the case based on facts presented in court. Or maybe those who had a personal opinion about ventura or kyle one way or the other were filtered out to ensure a fair trial based on the evidence.

It could also be the other way around, with the lone holdout supporting Ventura.

If everyone thought as you imagine they do -- "he looks like the idiot and bully he is for harassing blah blah blah" -- they would have come right back with a verdict for the defendant/  Obviously some are on Ventura's side.

I don't believe they have to have a unanimous verdict in a civil matter.  I've never heard of a requirement for a unanimous verdict in a civil matter in Minnesota.

 I admire the jury for taking their job seriously.  Certainly can't be said for other high profile cases.   

Jury Can’t Reach Verdict In Ventura Defamation Case

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) – Monday marks day five for jury deliberations in the Jesse Ventura defamation lawsuit trial. The jury deliberated for more than 24 total hours last week, but still has not reached a verdict.

The 10-person jury has been at it for almost a week, and it’s tense because it remains unclear what will happen.

Lawyers for both sides were summoned into the court room just after noon Monday, and the jury told the judge that they could not come to a unanimous verdict. The judge sent the jury back into the deliberation room in an attempt to reach a verdict Monday afternoon.

The judge also praised them as one of the most conscientious juries he’s ever had, but noted the case might have to be re-tried if they remain deadlocked.

The case centers around the book “American Sniper” and its author, former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle.

Chris Kyle said in interviews he punched former Minnesota Gov. Ventura in a bar in 2006 for making unpatriotic comments. Ventura said it never happened, and he lost business opportunities because his reputation was damaged from the unflattering story. Ventura wants up to $15 million in damages.

Kyle was murdered in 2013 so his widow, Taya Kyle, has been acting on his behalf in an emotional three-week long trial that’s now become a long wait.

Hamline Law School Professor David Schultz described to us what could be the big hold up.

“The more likely scenario is that it’s a 10-person jury that is a split jury that you have several jurors who have made up their mind and want to rule in favor of Kyle, several in favor of Ventura and they are not going to be able to bridge that gap. They’re just stuck,” Schultz said.

To rule in Ventura’s favor, the jury must find by clear and convincing evidence that Chris Kyle knew his story was false and published it anyway

If jurors can’t reach a verdict, professor Schultz said the judge could order the jury to keep working or declare a mistrial. Then Ventura’s legal team would have to make another trial happen.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/07/28/jury-deliberations-to-continue-in-ventura-case/

I'm not sure its legal for a judge to order a jury to come to one conclusion and deny them the option of a hung jury. That said I think a hung jury is the best solution. it lets ventura's ego off the hook  without taking money from the widow. It does however show that the deposition which some accused of being lies because "they didn't remember and if you can't remember you're lying" wasn't as powerful as some had thought it would be for ventura.

Judge instructs the jury to keep trying.  It will be fascinating to see the split if this ends up in a mistrial.  Hopefully, if that is the case, Ventura will drop this once and for all.  He looks like the idiot and bully he is for harassing Chris Kyle's widow....and trying to take money from her children.

Really a shame....

Jury says it can't reach unanimous verdict in Ventura trial

The jury in the defamation lawsuit brought by former Gov. Jesse Ventura informed the judge Monday that they can’t reach a verdict, the judge told attorneys for both sides.

But U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle told the jurors to “give it one more shot” and asked them to resume deliberations, noting that his instructions required a unanimous verdict.

The 10-member jury looked somber as Kyle urged them to try one more time.

After the jury left the courtroom, Kyle told attorneys for both sides seated at their counsel tables to “stay close. This might not be a long afternoon.”

Jurors have been deliberating since last Tuesday afternoon, for a total of about 27 and a half hours, in the suit filed by Ventura claiming that the late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle fabricated an account of a 2006 bar fight in his best-selling book, “American Sniper.” Kyle wrote that he punched out a “celebrity” ex-Navy SEAL who was criticizing the SEALs’ role in the war in Iraq during a wake for a fallen SEAL. Ventura’s lawsuit claims the account ruined his reputation.

Chris Kyle was killed in 2013, and Ventura continued the suit against his estate and his widow, Taya, who is managing the estate.

The jury had taken the weekend off and shortly after they resumed deliberations at 9 a.m. Monday morning they requested an easel and pens be brought to the jury room

At 11:49 a.m. Monday a courthouse employee rolled a cart of sandwiches to the seventh-floor backroom at U.S. District Court in St. Paul. And shortly after noon, the judge informed the attorneys about the jury’s inability to reach a verdict.


  http://www.startribune.com/local/268883971.html