Inset: Zachary Young in court on the first day of his defamation case against CNN (The Washington Free Beacon/Pool photos). Background: “The Lead with Jake Tapper” being played during Tuesday’s proceedings (The Washington Free Beacon/Pool photos).
A Florida jury on Friday morning put itself into position to deliver money justice to a U.S. Navy veteran who was defamed by CNN during a broadcast about his private business efforts to evacuate people from Afghanistan as the war-torn country was overrun by the Taliban.
A unanimous six-person jury in Bay County determined the cable news network was liable for defamation stemming from a November 2021 segment on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” in which journalist Alex Marquardt painted Zachary Young as an “illegal profiteer” exploiting “desperate Afghans” with “exorbitant” fees amid the fallout of President Joe Biden’s chaotic withdrawal, according to the language of the lawsuit.
Young maintained CNN’s broadcast effectively tarred him as a scofflaw and ruined his business, making it nearly impossible for him to work because of the severe damage to his reputation that ensued.
Jurors agreed. On the first count, defamation per se, the jury ruled in Young’s favor. On the second count of defamation by implication, the Sunshine State residents also ruled for Young.
In sum, jurors awarded Young $4 million for lost employment and $1 million for pain and suffering, and said that CNN should also be subject to punitive damages. However, at around 4:15 p.m. on Friday, as the jurors were presumably deliberating that amount, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge William Henry announced that the parties had come to an agreement, and told the jurors their job was done.
Closing arguments took up several hours for each party before the jury was tasked with deliberations on Thursday.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘You can think whatever you want’: Tense exchange between Jake Tapper and Navy veteran’s lawyer during deposition shown to jurors in CNN defamation trial
The plaintiff’s side brought a theme all the way back home during their penultimate presentation in the Emerald Coast adjacent courtroom.
During opening statements, Young’s lead attorney Devin “Vel” Freedman played up the notion that CNN was aware the broadcast in question was a “hit piece” it knew to be “theater” when it aired.
The attorney reprised the claim in dramatic fashion — repeatedly playing a minimalistic clip of Marquardt raising his hands and arms in a theatrical gesture while saying the word “theater” and laughing.
“He admitted it,” Freedman said. “You rarely get smoking gun documents like this in a legal case. You just rarely do.”
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Yeah, he’s a s–––’: Internal CNN communications showcased in defamation trial between Navy veteran and cable news network as senior employee takes the stand
On the stand, the plaintiff’s attorney reminded jurors, the CNN journalist explained away his behavior by saying he was a fan of a Jon Lovitz character on “Saturday Night Live” who used the same catchphrase while making a similar gesture. Under pressure, however, Marquardt was reminded that the Lovitz catchphrase is actually: “Acting.”
“Did you see his face when that happened?” Freedman asked the jury. “The veneer shattered. He was a liar. He was engaging in theater. He was caught in it. He lied about it. He was caught in it again. CNN knew the story wasn’t true. They knew they had no facts to support it — but they hated Zach — so they orchestrated theater. They set him up and they took him down.”
Young’s lawyer said they were able to confirm 1.6 million people viewed the broadcast, and that their high range estimates suggest some 2.7 people might have seen it. Those numbers, the plaintiff’s attorney said, dwarfed that of viewers who saw the correction.
“The correction was seen by 942,000 people,” Freedman said. “But let’s be honest, the correction didn’t do anything. Doesn’t matter. The man can’t get hired. It doesn’t matter how many people saw it. They issued a correction because they were trying to get out of a lawsuit.”
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘I’m tired of these blatant misrepresentations’: Judge blows up at CNN’s lead attorney during defamation case and says he owes Navy veteran ‘an apology’ for calling him a liar
The defense’s closing was delivered by attorney David Axelrod — who also performed a callback to his own opening statement.
“When I started, or when I opened, I should say, I was going to tell you that CNN’s reporting was accurate: tough but fair,” Axelrod said. “And I’m going to tell you that all day long. Sometimes stories get told. And they’re true. But they’re tough. Right? They’re tough because they tell the truth about someone — about what someone’s doing. And, obviously, that person doesn’t want to be talked about. But it happens.”
As the defense attorney spoke, he laid out the heart of CNN’s case in a clear three-tiered PowerPoint presentation.
Emblazoned on the screen were the concepts:
TRUTH
NO DEFAMATION
NO REPUTATIONAL HARM
On Thursday, in the jury room, those words themselves rang false.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘What a punchable face’: CNN journalist confronted with disparaging messages about Navy veteran suing network for defamation
After CNN’s presentation, Freedman offered a relatively short rebuttal.
“Accidents happen, but this? This was no accident.” Freedman told jurors at one point. “CNN’s malice and willful desire to harm Zach is documented by their reporters. Think about that for a second. This organization is arrogant, they respect the American people so little, that they don’t even hesitate — documenting and documenting their malicious intent. Hold me to my burden because we have the receipts. Hold me to my burden because the world is watching what you all are going do today. Hold me to my burden because your verdict will stand in history as everyday Americans from the great state of Florida, from Bay County, stood up to fake news. Stood up to lies. Stood up to corporate greed. And shifted American media back toward normalcy.”
Jurors began deliberations just moments after 2:47 p.m. Central Standard Time. In sum, they took eight hours and 29 minutes to reach a decision.
