Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
Do you think there is a good chance that this actually holds up on appeal?
|
$115 million? No.
But $75 million or more? Yeah, I do.
It's going to be a procedural appeal rather than any kind of Constitutional one (unless they really try to push it that far). The appeals court isn't going to hear a Constitutional appeal. What they'll look at is whether or not all evidence was rightly/wrongly excluded or omitted. Evidently Gawker believes a key witness was inappropriately excluded.
Appellate courts give MASSIVE latitude to trial level judges when it comes to evidentiary matters. So I think it's unlikely they'll rule that the exclusion was even inappropriate. Admittedly, I can't speak terribly strongly to it because I don't know why the witness was excluded or what he/she would've testified to.
Now even if they clear that hurdle, I don't think the verdict will be overturned because I believe the appellate court will call it harmless error. I don't know much about that witness but I do know that AJ Daulerio put forward the single worst deposition I've ever seen, he was nearly as bad as a witness and a complete tool during the trial. Daulerio absolutely massacred Gawker through his arrogance. I think there's a very good chance that an appellate court will look at all the evidence and decide that Gawker was drawing dead due to the rest of the evidence adduced.
As for their First Amendment article...it's just absolute bullshit. There is no way on this earth that a sex tape that was surruptitiously recorded without the consent of the parties and released for profit will be considered protected speech. Even getting to speech is a bridge too far, IMO, but even if they get there, it won't be considered protected.
Like I said, if there's a right to privacy, this absolutely violates it.
I think this one stands, at least to the extent needed to sink Gawker.