Post by TheShadow on Jul 5, 2007 11:37:51 GMT -5
www1.pressdemocrat.com/
Case dates to 1994, when team wanted venue at Hollywood Park
By PHIL BARBER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The Raiders' losses are now moving beyond the football field.
On Monday, the state Supreme Court upheld a judgment against the Raiders in their $1.2 billion suit against the National Football League, saying the team had failed to prove juror misconduct in a 1999 trial.
"The judge who oversaw the trial found there were overt acts of jury misconduct and ordered a new trial," said Raiders general counsel Jeff Birren. "The Supreme Court ruled that because the judge failed to insert a few extra words of explanation, the Raiders should be denied a new trial. The Supreme Court's ruling is incomprehensible."
The case dates to late 1994, when the Raiders opened meetings with representatives of Hollywood Park to discuss construction of a state-of-the-art stadium. The process stalled, however, when the NFL got involved and adopted a resolution insisting upon a second team in Los Angeles. The Raiders bolted back to Oakland the next year.
In March 1999, the team brought an action for damages against the league, saying the Raiders were due $700 million for giving the NFL an "opportunity" to place another team in L.A., and $500 million for the league's failure to offer adequate support for the Hollywood Park plan. The case went to trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 13, 2001, and after 15 days of deliberation the jury returned a 9-to-3 verdict in favor of the NFL.
On July 26, 2002, the Raiders moved for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct. They asserted that juror "Joseph A." was openly biased against the team, and another juror, an attorney named "Linda H.," infused the deliberations with her own views of the law. The Raiders submitted declarations from five jurors to demonstrate the misconduct; the NFL countered with declarations from seven jurors.
Two months later, Superior Court Judge Richard Hubbell granted the team's motion for a new trial, stating: "The Court finds that the objectively ascertainable acts of juror misconduct were prejudicial to the Oakland Raiders' right to a fair trial."
But a Court of Appeals struck down Hubbell's judgment, noting that any order for a new trial must offer a clear statement of reasons. Hubbell's explanation apparently wasn't clear enough, as it failed to point out whether it was Joseph A. or Linda H., or both, who acted improperly. In the absence of a clear statement, the burden fell to the Raiders to prove misconduct, and the appellate court said they failed to do so.
The Supreme Court essentially agreed with the Court of Appeals.
"The testimonial evidence submitted by the parties in the form of juror declarations is sharply conflicting on every material issue, and the Raiders submitted no other evidence to support their motion for a new trial," Associate Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the majority opinion.
Birren said the Raiders were digesting Monday's decision after its posting on the state Supreme Court Web site, and were unsure of their next move. The team's only options now would be to file a petition for errant hearing, or to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court -- or, of course, to drop the case.
In light of the more conciliatory spirit the Raiders have adopted toward the city of Oakland and the county of Alameda in the past two years, this latest ruling could usher in a curiously litigation-free era for team owner Al Davis.
Case dates to 1994, when team wanted venue at Hollywood Park
By PHIL BARBER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The Raiders' losses are now moving beyond the football field.
On Monday, the state Supreme Court upheld a judgment against the Raiders in their $1.2 billion suit against the National Football League, saying the team had failed to prove juror misconduct in a 1999 trial.
"The judge who oversaw the trial found there were overt acts of jury misconduct and ordered a new trial," said Raiders general counsel Jeff Birren. "The Supreme Court ruled that because the judge failed to insert a few extra words of explanation, the Raiders should be denied a new trial. The Supreme Court's ruling is incomprehensible."
The case dates to late 1994, when the Raiders opened meetings with representatives of Hollywood Park to discuss construction of a state-of-the-art stadium. The process stalled, however, when the NFL got involved and adopted a resolution insisting upon a second team in Los Angeles. The Raiders bolted back to Oakland the next year.
In March 1999, the team brought an action for damages against the league, saying the Raiders were due $700 million for giving the NFL an "opportunity" to place another team in L.A., and $500 million for the league's failure to offer adequate support for the Hollywood Park plan. The case went to trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 13, 2001, and after 15 days of deliberation the jury returned a 9-to-3 verdict in favor of the NFL.
On July 26, 2002, the Raiders moved for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct. They asserted that juror "Joseph A." was openly biased against the team, and another juror, an attorney named "Linda H.," infused the deliberations with her own views of the law. The Raiders submitted declarations from five jurors to demonstrate the misconduct; the NFL countered with declarations from seven jurors.
Two months later, Superior Court Judge Richard Hubbell granted the team's motion for a new trial, stating: "The Court finds that the objectively ascertainable acts of juror misconduct were prejudicial to the Oakland Raiders' right to a fair trial."
But a Court of Appeals struck down Hubbell's judgment, noting that any order for a new trial must offer a clear statement of reasons. Hubbell's explanation apparently wasn't clear enough, as it failed to point out whether it was Joseph A. or Linda H., or both, who acted improperly. In the absence of a clear statement, the burden fell to the Raiders to prove misconduct, and the appellate court said they failed to do so.
The Supreme Court essentially agreed with the Court of Appeals.
"The testimonial evidence submitted by the parties in the form of juror declarations is sharply conflicting on every material issue, and the Raiders submitted no other evidence to support their motion for a new trial," Associate Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the majority opinion.
Birren said the Raiders were digesting Monday's decision after its posting on the state Supreme Court Web site, and were unsure of their next move. The team's only options now would be to file a petition for errant hearing, or to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court -- or, of course, to drop the case.
In light of the more conciliatory spirit the Raiders have adopted toward the city of Oakland and the county of Alameda in the past two years, this latest ruling could usher in a curiously litigation-free era for team owner Al Davis.