Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 More due diligence is needed, you're right. However, based on what I've read previously of how they operate, I'd say the "something very extreme" is likely the opinions and positions of the Westboro people, unfortunately, and that they were a prime factor in why a jury was able to find them liable. I hope that's not the case. Their opinions alone would not fall within the scope of evidence necessary to find against them. In fact, their opinons or past conduct alone, was most likely never mentioned to the jury. When a case goes to trial, what is relevant evidence is what happend in the particular circumstance in front of the jury. Especially in civil cases, which this action was, it is extremely unlikely that a judge allowed any evidence of the people's character or prior conduct to be admitted. Now, if the defendant church testified to it themselves, then it can be admitted. But, their attorney would probably try to keep them from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 More due diligence is needed, you're right. However, based on what I've read previously of how they operate, I'd say the "something very extreme" is likely the opinions and positions of the Westboro people, unfortunately, and that they were a prime factor in why a jury was able to find them liable. I hope that's not the case. Their opinions alone would not fall within the scope of evidence necessary to find against them. In fact, their opinons or past conduct alone, was most likely never mentioned to the jury. When a case goes to trial, what is relevant evidence is what happend in the particular circumstance in front of the jury. Especially in civil cases, which this action was, it is extremely unlikely that a judge allowed any evidence of the people's character or prior conduct to be admitted. Now, if the defendant church testified to it themselves, then it can be admitted. But, their attorney would probably try to keep them from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I'd have to know more facts, but I can just say that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a VERY difficult case to win. There must have been something very extreme going on in order to get a plaintiff's verdict. What is extreme is that Phelps and his church are extremely repugnant and a jury is going to hate them, and rightfully so. Again, I am assuming this from what I have read in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I'd have to know more facts, but I can just say that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a VERY difficult case to win. There must have been something very extreme going on in order to get a plaintiff's verdict. What is extreme is that Phelps and his church are extremely repugnant and a jury is going to hate them, and rightfully so. Again, I am assuming this from what I have read in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I dont think you'd have too tough a time showing substantial certainty that emotional distress would result or that it was extreme and outragous conduct.... to me the tough one would be showing severe emotional damage. I agree with that, but you still have to prove causation in intentional infliction cases, right? If they were 1000 feet away, it would be pretty tough to show that the plaintiff knew about it, wouldnt it? They must have done something to make it obvious to the family what was going on. Otherwise, I don't see causation. Also, I think in the case of funeral desecration, you can usually get an almost "per se" finding of severe emotional distress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I dont think you'd have too tough a time showing substantial certainty that emotional distress would result or that it was extreme and outragous conduct.... to me the tough one would be showing severe emotional damage. I agree with that, but you still have to prove causation in intentional infliction cases, right? If they were 1000 feet away, it would be pretty tough to show that the plaintiff knew about it, wouldnt it? They must have done something to make it obvious to the family what was going on. Otherwise, I don't see causation. Also, I think in the case of funeral desecration, you can usually get an almost "per se" finding of severe emotional distress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I agree with that, but you still have to prove causation in intentional infliction cases, right? If they were 1000 feet away, it would be pretty tough to show that the plaintiff knew about it, wouldnt it?They must have done something to make it obvious to the family what was going on. Otherwise, I don't see causation. Also, I think in the case of funeral desecration, you can usually get an almost "per se" finding of severe emotional distress. The families are aways very aware of whats going on...to the point that frequently that motorcycle group (whos name is escaping me) shows up to keep a barrier and revs their engines to drown out the protest...their presence is always VERY clear to the funeral goers. Apparently in many of these states they are to be a set distance from the GRAVE SITE with no regard of the procession having to pass them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I agree with that, but you still have to prove causation in intentional infliction cases, right? If they were 1000 feet away, it would be pretty tough to show that the plaintiff knew about it, wouldnt it?They must have done something to make it obvious to the family what was going on. Otherwise, I don't see causation. Also, I think in the case of funeral desecration, you can usually get an almost "per se" finding of severe emotional distress. The families are aways very aware of whats going on...to the point that frequently that motorcycle group (whos name is escaping me) shows up to keep a barrier and revs their engines to drown out the protest...their presence is always VERY clear to the funeral goers. Apparently in many of these states they are to be a set distance from the GRAVE SITE with no regard of the procession having to pass them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 TSF, I think what we're suggesting is that the case was possibly biased by the repugnant nature of these people's views and actions and they were found liable more because of that than for evidentary reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 TSF, I think what we're suggesting is that the case was possibly biased by the repugnant nature of these people's views and actions and they were found liable more because of that than for evidentary reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 While the plaintiffs would have obviously opposed it and I dont know what state regulations would be... I imagine that the defendants pushed pretty hard for a bench trial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 While the plaintiffs would have obviously opposed it and I dont know what state regulations would be... I imagine that the defendants pushed pretty hard for a bench trial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 TSF, I think what we're suggesting is that the case was possibly biased by the repugnant nature of these people's views and actions and they were found liable more because of that than for evidentary reasons. I see what you are saying, but a competent lawyer for the defense team should have been able to limit the evidence before the jury only to what actually happened on the day in question. So, if a jury found that day extreme and outrageous conduct, I mean, I suppose you could call that being biased, but really that is the finding of the jury. That's all we have to determine that, right? While the plaintiffs would have obviously opposed it and I dont know what state regulations would be...I imagine that the defendants pushed pretty hard for a bench trial! Maryland has a Constutional right to a jury trial in civil cases. Then again, this case was brought in federal court under Maryland law... Now my head is spinning thinking about which law was being imposed upon the parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 TSF, I think what we're suggesting is that the case was possibly biased by the repugnant nature of these people's views and actions and they were found liable more because of that than for evidentary reasons. I see what you are saying, but a competent lawyer for the defense team should have been able to limit the evidence before the jury only to what actually happened on the day in question. So, if a jury found that day extreme and outrageous conduct, I mean, I suppose you could call that being biased, but really that is the finding of the jury. That's all we have to determine that, right? While the plaintiffs would have obviously opposed it and I dont know what state regulations would be...I imagine that the defendants pushed pretty hard for a bench trial! Maryland has a Constutional right to a jury trial in civil cases. Then again, this case was brought in federal court under Maryland law... Now my head is spinning thinking about which law was being imposed upon the parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Tulane, this would hardly be the first jury that nailed a defendant because they hated them, not because they did anything for which they should be legally liable. That's what appeals are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Tulane, this would hardly be the first jury that nailed a defendant because they hated them, not because they did anything for which they should be legally liable. That's what appeals are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Tulane, this would hardly be the first jury that nailed a defendant because they hated them, not because they did anything for which they should be legally liable. That's what appeals are for. Exactly what I'm saying. Nevermind the evidence introduced or not, people know who the Phelps are and what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Tulane, this would hardly be the first jury that nailed a defendant because they hated them, not because they did anything for which they should be legally liable. That's what appeals are for. Exactly what I'm saying. Nevermind the evidence introduced or not, people know who the Phelps are and what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Tulane, this would hardly be the first jury that nailed a defendant because they hated them, not because they did anything for which they should be legally liable. That's what appeals are for. Read the complaint http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Complaint.pdf They screwed up by going on a personal level both on their web pages and the protest. :2cents: Have fun defending anyone that defends them. :moon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Tulane, this would hardly be the first jury that nailed a defendant because they hated them, not because they did anything for which they should be legally liable. That's what appeals are for. Read the complaint http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Complaint.pdf They screwed up by going on a personal level both on their web pages and the protest. :2cents: Have fun defending anyone that defends them. :moon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Read the complainthttp://www.matthewsnyder.org/Complaint.pdf They screwed up by going on a personal level both on their web pages and the protest. :2cents: Have fun defending anyone that defends them. :moon: I hadn't read the complaint. I also don't know if the complaint reflects the facts actually proven at trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Read the complainthttp://www.matthewsnyder.org/Complaint.pdf They screwed up by going on a personal level both on their web pages and the protest. :2cents: Have fun defending anyone that defends them. :moon: I hadn't read the complaint. I also don't know if the complaint reflects the facts actually proven at trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I hadn't read the complaint.I also don't know if the complaint reflects the facts actually proven at trial. You're starting to sound like the Phelps' defense attorney. You read the complaint. The jury found for the plaintiff. Now the Phelps may finally get what's coming to them, after too long abusing the notion of freedom of speech to inflict pain and suffering on the grieving parents of dead children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I hadn't read the complaint.I also don't know if the complaint reflects the facts actually proven at trial. You're starting to sound like the Phelps' defense attorney. You read the complaint. The jury found for the plaintiff. Now the Phelps may finally get what's coming to them, after too long abusing the notion of freedom of speech to inflict pain and suffering on the grieving parents of dead children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I hadn't read the complaint.I also don't know if the complaint reflects the facts actually proven at trial. I know your heart is in the right place(even if you are a lib) I don't have a trial transcript, but I do have the ruling on the motion to dismiss if your interested. http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Snyder%20v.%20WBC%20-%20Memorandum%20Opinion%20denying%20S%20&%20R_s%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.