by James Murphy, The New American:
Writer and conservative television and radio personality Mark Steyn has filed an appeal of the controversial decision against him in a defamation case brought by Michael Mann, the creator of the widely discredited “hockey stick” graph that featured so prominently in Al Gore’s fantasy film An Inconvenient Truth.
The DC court, helmed by Judge Alfred Irving, ruled in favor of Mann, awarding the scientist $1 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages from Steyn. Fellow defendant Rand Simberg was also found to have defamed the climate scientist, but his penalty was far smaller, only $1 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages.
In 2021, the entities who published the alleged defamation — the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review — were found not liable for any defamation.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Writer Amy K. Mitchell referred to the verdict as “a bad day for America.” She wrote: “The precedent set today … means that disagreement and/or criticism of a matter of public policy — the founding principle of this country — is now in doubt. And should you choose to give voice to any dissent, you can [be] brought before a jury, held responsible, and fined.”
On Friday, Steyn filed a stay of execution of the $1 million award, arguing that “the $1,000,000 punitive damage award is unlawful for numerous reasons”; a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL); and a motion for a new trial, arguing that Mann gave false testimony during the trial, that his lawyers elicited that false testimony, and that those attorneys used “highly improper and prejudicial jury arguments.”
Among other things, Mann’s attorneys compared Steyn and Simberg to Donald Trump and the January 6 rioters, which is especially ironic since one of Mann’s main complaints was that the defendants compared Penn State University’s (Mann’s former employer) investigation of Mann’s hockey stick graph with the university’s hapless investigation of convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.
Steyn told the court he deserves a new trial because Mann’s lawyer deliberately equated Steyn with Jan 6 rioters to inflame a juror he knew worked in the U.S. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms office and was caught up in Jan 6 riots
— Phelim McAleer (@PhelimMcAleer) March 9, 2024
While the case was supposedly about defamation, Mann’s attorneys repeatedly brought up climate change and how “these attacks on climate scientists have to stop,” for which the court admonished Mann’s attorneys.
Steyn contends that the actions of Mann’s attorneys argued for a new trial. “Counsel’s highly improper argument that ‘these attacks on climate scientists have to stop’ requires a new trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.”
In a statement after the verdict, Mann said he hoped it would send a message to those who would criticize climate scientists: “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”
But Steyn pointed out in his motion for a new trial that “sending a message” is something that attorneys are forbidden from asking juries to do:
The Court of Appeals “has stated repeatedly that an attorney must not ask a jury to ‘send a message’ to anyone.” Bowman v. United States…. This is the law for good reason: “Juries are not in the message-sending business. Their sole duty is to return a verdict based on the facts before them.”
Steyn’s request for a new trial went on: “Telling the jury ‘these attacks on climate scientists have to stop’ was a forbidden send-a-message argument.”
Read More @ TheNewAmerican.com
