Ventura v. Kyle

Facts

D was a sniper for a United States Navy Sea, Air and Land (SEAL) team. He authored the book American Sniper: D described punching a 'celebrity' referred to as 'Scruff Face' who was making offensive remarks about the SEALs at a gathering following the funeral of a SEAL killed in combat. D revealed 'Scruff Face' was James Janos, better known as P. D did this on national television. D's editor described the publicity resulting from D's radio interview as 'priceless' in an email, and D's publicist agreed the publicity response was 'HOT, hot, hot!' The book was by all accounts a success. In 2014, D's editor testified 1.5 million copies had been sold. P denied a fight occurred, and sued D for defamation, misappropriation, and unjust enrichment, alleging D fabricated the incident. At the close of discovery, D moved for summary judgment.  The court concluded D was not entitled to summary judgment on the defamation claim because 'P has proffered sufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude that D's statements [in the book] were materially false.' The district court noted there were conflicting eyewitness accounts of the alleged incident, and photos of P from the following day showed no visible injuries. P introduced evidence D told different versions of the story. Three people who were with P that evening testified they witnessed no altercation. However, these people were not in P's immediate vicinity for the entire evening, and one testified he was hard of hearing. D mentioned in the interviews, but not the book, that the police saw the whole incident. P produced a letter from the Coronado police department stating there was no police record mentioning P's or D's name. P introduced photos of himself at a graduation event the day after the alleged incident that show no obvious injuries, despite D having written 'rumor has it he showed up at the BUD/S graduation with a black eye.' D also presented several witnesses who were at the bar that evening, who testified they either heard P make the alleged comments, witnessed some type of physical altercation, or both. All of D's witnesses were current or former SEALs or friends or family of SEALs. At least seven witnesses testified they overheard some of P's remarks and offered generally similar accounts of what P said. At least seven witnesses testified they saw D (or an unidentified man, for those who did not know D) punch P; saw P on the ground or getting up off the ground; or heard a 'commotion' or 'yelling.' Witness estimates of the timing and location of the incident were not consistent. Two witnesses from HarperCollins, American Sniper's publisher, testified at trial. Sharyn Rosenblum testified she did not see the 'Scruff Face' subchapter as relevant to her publicity campaign.  She was 'surprised' when P's name came up in D's interview. She said, the P story had played a very insignificant part and did not impact the book's success. The editor, Peter Hubbard, testified the 'Scruff Face' story was not relevant to his decision to enter into a book contract. He characterized the 'mention of  P' as having a 'negligible' effect on the success of the book. P sought to impeach the HarperCollins witnesses by questioning them about  HarperCollins's insurance coverage to show HarperCollins had 'a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation' and the witnesses were biased in favor of D. Fed. R. Evid. 411.  D objected but the district court allowed it. D's counsel questioned the two about the coverage and direct financial involvement. Rosenblum denied knowledge of HarperCollins's insurance policy. Hubbard did not know of the coverage either. D's counsel moved for a mistrial after both inquiries. The district court denied both motions. During closing, P stated that 'It's hard to believe that they didn't know about the insurance policy because it's right in the publishing contract. Paragraph 6.B.3. of Exhibit 82, Chris Kyle is an additional insured for defamation under the publisher's insurance policy.'  D did not object in front of the jury but moved again for a mistrial due to the insurance references once the jury was excused. The district court denied the motion. D's counsel did not ask for a curative instruction and the district court did not give one. The jury ultimately reached an 8-2 verdict on the fifth full day of deliberations. The jury found in favor of P on the defamation claim, awarding $500,000 in damages, and found in D's favor on the misappropriation claim. Serving in its advisory role as to the equitable unjust-enrichment claim, the jury recommended an award of approximately $1.35 million, which the district court adopted. D moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, contending in part that the jury  'awards were tainted by the admission of prejudicial testimony and argument regarding D's] insurance.' The court denied the motion. D appealed. D argues he is entitled to a new trial because the district court clearly abused its discretion by permitting P to ask questions that put prejudicial information before the jury and to invoke D's insurance in the closing argument.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.