Replies

The plaintiff was a convicted drug dealer and ex-con, yet the jury believed him and not Simon's firm. That is an excellent indication that there was pretty hot documentary evidence damning Simon's firm.

There is no better proof that jury was really, really mad, than the $65 million punitive damages award - 5x the special damages. Reviewing such jury verdicts is my day job.

The plaintiff was a convicted drug dealer and ex-con, yet the jury believed him and not Simon's firm. That is an excellent indication that there was pretty hot documentary evidence damning Simon's firm.

Im a patient soul.. We'll see what the appeals court has to say.. Thank You.

pretty hot documentary evidence damning Simon's firm

Well then there must have something sealed and not available to the writer of this article!

IMHO!

Your comments make this all very interesting!

What the hell is going on!

Any idea whether there will be a transcript online or available to the public?

The plaintiff was a convicted drug dealer and ex-con, yet the jury believed him and not Simon's firm. That is an excellent indication that there was pretty hot documentary evidence damning Simon's firm.

Yes indeed jurys are intelligent, fair, impartial and immune from knee-jerk emotional arguments based on the headlines of the day. That's why we all know that O.J. Simpson was not guilty --- because there are no stupid juries. So there just had to be more to it. Like when the greedy malicious McDonald executives conspired to scald people with coffee. < / sarcasm >

No there wasn't any "damning" evidence that hasn't come out. The Simon family was tried for being a "big business" and the plaintiffs lawyers said as much in their closing arguments. Fortunately it is NOT against the law to be a large successful business. I predict that this whole thing is going to be tossed out long before the November election.