Churchill v. University of Colorado: The View from the Jury

There has been some uncertainty about the message sent by the jury in the trial of Ward Churchill.  By finding for Churchill, the jury clearly held that the University of Colorado fired Churchill because of his speech.  By awarding only $1, however, it was unclear whether the jurors were penalizing Churchill (perhaps finding that he may have been at least partially responsible for the dismissal) or were largely giving him what he asked:  No damages and the right to seek his job back.

Reports from one of the jurors may resolve the issue.  The juror indicated that five out of the six were in favor of awarding damages above the $1.  They opted to award the $1 only because a single juror objected to any damages.  As the article noted:  "Juror Bethany Newill told The Denver Post that she thinks Churchill deserved something to cover legal costs and lost pay. But she said one holdout, whom she didn't name, believed Churchill ruined his own reputation and at one point asked to be removed from the jury."

So it seems the verdict was a compromise but one induced not by an equally divided jury but one where only a single juror to some degree sided with CU.

Comments

[Comment]

The holdout juror in effect forced the other jurors to concede that Churchill soiled his own reputation and deserved nothing more than nominal damages. The only alternative to making this concession was to have a hung jury. The $1 monetary award reflects this compromise in favor of CU's findings of research misconduct against Churchill.

[Fred Bauder]

The jury, the public, and I, are quite unclear about what can be expected to happen about legal fees, back pay, lost pay, and possible reinstatement. Some of these questions fall into the traditional jurisdiction of equity. What factors might the judge consider regarding reinstatement?

[Comment]

Because of the holdout juror, the rest of the jury was forced to concede that Churchill had ruined his own reputation and therefore deserved virtually no money damages. The only alternative to this concession was to have a hung jury. Churchill's lawyer had asked the jury to send a message through a monetary award. The message the jury sent was that Churchill deserved next to nothing since his reputation was in the toilet as a result of his own fault.

[jason]

so in the end, free speech doesn't win out. if you are punished for your speech, it isn't free right?

[thegeniusfiles]

Well, let's see what happens about Churchill's reinstatement before we conclude that free speech hasn't won. I think he has a reasonable chance, given the verdict in his favor.