Numerous reports have appeared in the Tribune over the past several days concerning the Rachel Barton trial. Many were downright inaccurate and have misled your readers. Headlines, stories and even your March 3 editorial specifically implied that Ms. Barton’s attorneys asked the jury to award nearly $600 million in compensation.
Not so. I was one of several spectators who had an opportunity to observe firsthand the closing arguments by counsel for both sides. What Mr. Clifford actually told the jurors is that he believed an award of punitive damages that ranged from zero to eight times the juror’s compensatory award would be appropriate. Subsequent stories in the Tribune (and elsewhere) took the liberty of a mathematical leap, calculated the upper range of the suggested award, and thereby mischaracterized what was actually said.
With respect to the contention that the jury’s total award of $29.6 million was “outrageous,” the Tribune does a further disservice to its readers, to the jurors who heard the evidence in the Barton trial and, indeed, to any juror who has ever sat in judgment in either a civil or criminal case. The Tribune’s editorial mentality is akin to that of a Monday morning quarterback–you were not players but nevertheless find it easy to criticize the verdict based on sideline emotion. It must be remembered that the Barton jurors heard all the evidence, and were the same ones chosen by both the defendants and the plaintiffs to hear all the facts and make an informed decision based on the evidence presented. Twelve independent jurors from all different walks of life usually always get it right and, in this case, it can truly be said that the jury did a far better job of listening to all the evidence than the Tribune did in reporting all the facts.
