Jury Foreman Reveals Insights from CNN Defamation Trial, Critiques Network’s Tactics

Jury Foreman Reveals Insights from CNN Defamation Trial, Critiques Network’s Tactics

The foreman of the jury that found CNN guilty of defaming U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young provides critical reflections on the trial. Katy Svitenko, in her first interview, asserted that CNN’s actions and testimony from its employees likely damaged the network’s credibility.

Svitenko remarked that the trial could shift public perception of CNN. She expressed, “I think it may change the way a lot of people look at CNN and maybe not take their news 100% to be correct.”

In a verdict delivered last month, Svitenko and her fellow jurors sided with Young, who accused CNN of defamation relating to a November 2021 report. The report, headed by correspondent Alex Marquardt, insinuated that Young profited illegally by aiding individuals in evacuating Afghanistan during the Biden administration’s military withdrawal from Taliban rule.

Following the jury’s verdict, which determined that punitive damages were warranted, Young and CNN ultimately reached a settlement.

Damning Evidence from CNN’s Internal Communications

During the trial, Svitenko highlighted that internal communications from CNN often presented the most damaging evidence against the network. Notable emails showed disparaging remarks made by CNN staff, including one referring to Young in derogatory terms, suggesting he had a “punchable face.” Marquardt reportedly wrote in an email that “we’re gonna nail this Zachary Young.”

Svitenko compared these emails to juvenile bullying, saying, “Some of those emails reminded me of middle school name-calling… It was those emails that gave us the defamation charge.” She believed that these communications painted a clear picture of malicious intent.

The Jury’s Rally Against Malicious Intent

Upon encountering Marquardt’s email expressions, Svitenko felt that they illustrated a lack of professional responsibility. She stated, “At that point, it seemed as though he had put a target on Mr. Young’s back, and he was not going to let up until he reached his goal.” The jury, she claims, unanimously perceived Marquardt’s behavior as malicious.

Reflecting on CNN’s employees’ testimonies, Svitenko noted that many jurors felt further estranged from the network as the trial progressed. She explained, “The more they talked, the more unfair we thought it was.” Specifically, she questioned Marquardt’s claim that he only attempted to call Young once throughout a two-week span before airing the controversial report.

Credibility Under Fire

Moreover, the jury scrutinized Marquardt’s credibility deeply during the trial. Svitenko remarked that jurors grew increasingly skeptical of his sincerity, particularly when footage surfaced showing him jokingly refer to a phone call with Young as “theater” for the cameras. This revelation sparked concern among jurors regarding the legitimacy of Marquardt’s actions.

Svitenko stated, “I thought that after he said ‘theater’… To me, that was just the same as him saying, ‘OK, I was acting.’” Several jurors remained unconvinced about Marquardt’s efforts to contact Young.

Juror Dynamics and Perspectives

During deliberations, jurors discussed their interpretations of key terms used in the trial. The term “black market” became a focal point as Young argued that it falsely portrayed his actions as illegal. Each juror defined the term as related to illegality, contrasting sharply with CNN staff who claimed it was appropriately used.

Svitenko noted that when deliberation began, five of the six jurors were already inclined to believe CNN had defamed Young. However, one juror held out, only to later agree with the majority after further contemplation.

Repercussions and Lessons

The jury awarded Young $4 million in lost earnings alongside $1 million in emotional damages, citing punitive damages as crucial for accountability. Svitenko conveyed that the initial intention was to signal a stern warning to CNN regarding its reporting ethics. She revealed, “We wanted it to be big enough to sting and also large enough to get the attention of other media outlets.”

While the awarded sums seemed relatively minor to CNN’s operations, Svitenko expressed a desire for a more substantial punitive amount to get the network’s attention. She articulated, “I think CNN might have been a little bit afraid of what we may have awarded.”

Contrast Between Legal Teams

In discussing the trial’s legal dynamics, Svitenko reflected on the contrasting approaches of the attorneys involved. She found CNN attorney David Axelrod to come across as condescending, stating, “I felt as though he were talking down to us in the jury, oftentimes. And that didn’t earn him any points.”

Conversely, she praised Young’s lead counsel, Vel Freedman, as engaging and serious about the implications of the case. Freedman advocated for holding CNN accountable, a notion that resonated significantly with the jurors.

Final Reflections on Media Accountability

Svitenko’s insights and reflections on the trial underscore the delicate nature of media credibility in today’s landscape. As the jurors expressed a collective desire for accountability, the case illustrates broader implications for news organizations operating within a polarized environment.

Though CNN issued a public apology post-verdict, its employees retreated to claims that no such admission was warranted. Svitenko remarked, “If this were one of my employees… I would have set that person down and said, ‘Listen, you are potentially going to cause this company millions and millions and millions of dollars.’” As the dust settles on this trial, the overarching message remains clear: accountability in journalism holds substantial weight that resonates far beyond the courtroom.