Watchtower: Jury Trial Day 10, Candace Conti v. Watchtower

8/20/2019 Watchtower: Jury Trial Day 10, Candace Conti v. Watchtower

1/35

1

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

3 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT MCGUINESS

4 DEPARTMENT 22

5

6

7 JANE DOE, ) No. HG115588324)

8 Plaintiff, )) A SS IG NE D F OR A LL P UR PO SE S T O

9 v. ) JUDGE ROBERT McGUINESS,) D EP AR TM EN T 2 2

10 WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND )T RA CT S OC IE TY O F N EW )11 YORK, INC., a )

corporation, et al., )12 )

Defendants. )13 )

_____________________)14

15 JURY TRIAL

16 JUNE 14, 2012

17 D AY 1 0

18

19 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC.COURT REPORTERS

20 (800) 288-3376www.depo.com

21

22 REPORTED BY: KATHRYN LLOYD, CSR NO. 5955

23

24 JOB NO: A605EC5

25


2/35


3/35

3

1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED)

2 FOR THE DEFENDANT:

3 THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY

4 O F N E W Y OR K, I NC .

5 JACKSON LEWIS, LLP

6 B Y: R OB ER T SC HN AC K, E SQ .

7 801 K Street, Suite 2300

8 Sacramento, CA 95814

9 Tel: (916) 341-0404

10 Fax: (916) 341-0141

11 Email: [email protected]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 --oOo--

22

23

24

25


4/35

4

1 INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS:

2 PAGE

3

4 JURY INSTRUCTIONS BY: THE COURT 12

5 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY: MR. SIMONS 14

6 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY: MR. SCHNACK 19

7 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT BY: MR. SIMONS 24

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 --oOo--

25


5/35

5

1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS:

2 NUMBER ADMITTED

3 (NO EXHIBITS WERE ADMITTED)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 --oOo--

25


6/35

6

1 JUNE 14, 2012 10:17 A.M.

2 PROCEEDINGS

3 (Whereupon, the following proceedings

4 were heard outside the presence of jurors)

5 TH E CO UR T: B ac k o n t he r eco rd i n th e m at te r

6 of the Candace Conti versus The Watchtower Bible and

7 Tract Society of New York, Inc.

8 The record should reflect that the jury

9 returned a verdict yesterday; that the issue of punitive

10 damages was bifurcated; that they determined, pursuant

11 to special verdict that was agreed upon, that The

12 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. did

13 act with malice.

14 Relative to the proceedings this morning, and

15 t ha t m ay o cc ur i n t hi s f as hi on a t t hi s t im e, b as ed u po n

16 p ri or c ou rt o rd er s t ha t I m ad e p re tr ia l i n t er ms o f

17 amendment of Complaint, timing and disclosure of

18 financial information.

19 Regarding financial information, by

20 a gr ee me nt , t he C ou rt i s g oi ng t o f ir st r ea d t o t he j ur y

21 t hi s m or ni ng s om et hi ng t ha t I w il l t el l t he m i s a

22 stipulated fact. And that stipulation is as follows:

23 "It is hereby stipulated to the

24 Defendant, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

25 of New York, Inc. and Plaintiff, that


7/35

7

1 Watchtower has current assets of $30 million

2 in cash, and real property estimated to be

3 valued at approximately $1 billion."

4 It is so stipulated.

5 To Defense counsel, Mr. Schnack, and to

6 P la in ti ff 's c ou ns el , M r. S im on s. C or re ct ? I a m a ll ow ed

7 t o r ea d t ha t o ne s ti pu la te d f ac t t o t he j ur y?

8 MR. McCABE: Correct, your Honor.

9 MR. SIMONS: Correct, your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Okay. Moving on. Mr. Simons

11 presented to the Defense, Casey 3949, Punitive Damages

12 Corporate Defendants, Second Phase.

13 The Defense, appropriately in the Court's

14 opinion under the Gagnon case felt that the Casey

15 instruction was deficient relative to what the jury must

16 consider, vis-a-vis, the current draft of Casey that

17 basically said in quotes.

18 "Is there a reasonable relationship between

19 the amount of punitive damages and Plaintiff's harm?"

20 After discussion -- multi-level discussions

21 between Court and counsel, I believe that the parties

22 have agreed that this instruction, as modified, may be

23 read as the instruction given to the jury this morning.

24 I am going to put it in the record -- so

25 t he re c an b e n o q ue st io n a bo ut i t - - a s a me nd ed a s


8/35

8

1 follows:

2 " Yo u m us t n ow d ec id e t he a mo un t, i f

3 any, that you should award punitive damages.

4 The purposes of punitive damages are to punish

5 a wrongdoer for the conduct that harmed the

6 Plaintiff and to discourage similar conduct in

7 the future.

8 T he re i s n o f ix ed f or mu la f or

9 determining the amount of punitive damages,

10 a nd yo u a re no t r eq ui re d t o a wa rd an y p un it iv e

11 damages. Any amount of punitive damages that

12 you award must bear a reasonable relationship

13 to Candace Conti's harm.

14 If you decide to award punitive

15 damages, you should consider all of the

16 following factors separately in determining

17 the amount.

18 (A) How reprehensible was Defendant,

19 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Inc.'s

20 conduct?

21 In deciding however reprehensible a

22 Defendant's conduct was, you may consider,

23 among other factors:

24 (1) whether the conduct caused

25 physical harm;


9/35

9

1 (2) whether the Defendant disregarded

2 the health or safety of others;

3 (3) whether the Defendant's conduct

4 involved a pattern or practice;

5 (4) whether the Defendant acted with

6 trickery or deceit.

7 ( B) I n v ie w o f W at ch to we r B ib le a nd

8 Tract Society Inc.'s financial condition, what

9 amount is necessary to punish it and

10 discourage future wrongful conduct?

11 You may not increase the punitive

12 damage award above an amount that is otherwise

13 appropriate merely because Defendant has

14 substantial financial resources.

15 A nd t he a wa rd y ou i mp os e m ay n ot

16 exceed that Defendant's ability to pay.

17 P un it iv e d am ag es mu st no t b e u se d t o p un is h a

18 defendant for the impact of its alleged

19 misconduct on persons other than Candace

20 Conti."

21 As read, counsel agreed to, relative to the

22 discussion of the Court and yourself?

23 Mr. Simons?

24 M R. S IM ON S: Y es .

25 T HE C OU RT : M r. S ch na ck ?


10/35

10

1 M R. S CH NA CK : S ub je ct t o o ur p ri or m ot io ns

2 and that to withdraw punitive damages from the jury, we

3 do agree with this.

4 T HE C OU RT : S ub je ct t o p ri or m ot io ns i t

5 involves.

6 A ll r ig ht . D o w e h av e e ve ry bo dy w it h u s?

7 (Break taken)


9 were heard in the presence of jurors)

10 TH E CO UR T: F ir st o f a ll t o t he j ury , t ha nk

11 you, as always, for your incredible commitment to this

12 c as e. I 'm g oin g to a dd res s th is n ow. I n ote d, w hen I

13 r ea d t he j ur y v er di ct y es te rd ay t ha t - - a nd I t ol d y ou

14 y ou w ou ld h av e t o d o a l it tl e b it m or e j ur y w or k,

15 otherwise known as judging, I gave you an instruction.

16 A nd I t hi nk yo u ha ve a se ns e o f w ha t I t ol d t he l aw ye rs .

17 I don't pretend to be omniscient up here.

18 I d on' t t hi nk i t i s a ny m yst er y t o y ou, I

19 h av e b ee n m ak in g a l ot o f d ec is io ns i n t hi s c as e o ut si de

20 o f y o ur p ur vi ew . A nd I 'm g oi ng t o t a lk a bo ut t ha t w h en

21 t he d us t s et tl es o n t he n ex t d ec is io n y ou a re g oi ng t o

22 make.

23 B ut w he n I r ea d t he i ns tr uc ti on , i t s ai d i t

24 w ou ld b e d e ci de d l a te r. A nd I d id n' t m ak e t h at

25 instruction. That's the instruction the courts give


11/35

11

1 t hr ou gh ou t t h e S ta te o f C al if or ni a. A nd t he n w h en I

2 n ot ic ed i n t he b od y o f t he l an gu ag e r ea d b ac k, a nd w he n

3 I w en t h om e l as t n ig ht a nd I r ea d t ha t, I r ea li ze d i t

4 doesn't say by whom.

5 A lt ho ug h I d id n' t l ik e i t, I 'm g oi ng t o t ak e

6 responsibility for it, I'm going to get better about

7 that communication to a jury because I never thought

8 a bo ut i t b e fo re . T he y s p en t e i gh t y e ar s t r yi ng t o g e t

9 these instructions right. Always remember, whether you

10 are a lawyer, whether you are doing business otherwise,

11 the art of communication often carries the day.

12 So I w ant t o b e v ery c le ar , w hen I t rie d to

13 walk in your shoes, I realized it didn't say decided

14 later by whom. So I just wanted to say that as you

15 start this morning.

16 L et m e e xp la in t he p ro ce ss s o y ou c an j us t

17 get a sense. In a moment I'm going to read to you a

18 s ti pu la te d f a ct . I t i s g oi ng t o b e a bo ut t hr ee

19 s en te nc es l on g. I a m t h en g oi ng t o r e ad a n i n st ru ct io n

20 t ha t w e c a n w or k o u t t hi s m o rn in g. O ne i ns tr uc ti on .

21 Then counsel are going to argue their respective

22 positions.

23 Mr. Simons, for Plaintiff, will start first,

24 Mr. Schnack, for The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

25 will then respond, and then Mr. Simons will have time


12/35

12

1 f or a r eb ut ta l a rg um en t. A ft er w hi ch y ou w il l c on ve ne

2 again to deliberate, the question is going to be asked

3 of you.

4 Once you have done that and after listening

5 t o t hi s j ud ge , a l it tl e b it a ft er t ha t, y ou w il l b e

6 through with your jury service and commitment to this

7 case.

8 A nd I l oo k f or wa rd t o a dd re ss in g y ou w he n i t

9 is done for many good reasons, including the obvious

10 commitment of time and interest and dealing with the

11 issues presented.

12

13 JURY INSTRUCTION

14 TH E CO UR T: S o, t ha t b ein g t he c as e, l et me

15 read to you the stipulated fact:

16 It is hereby stipulated between Defendant,

17 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and

18 Plaintiff, that Watchtower has current assets of

19 $30 million in cash and real property estimated to be

20 v al ue d a t a pp ro xi ma te ly $ 1 b i ll io n. I t i s s o

21 stipulated.

22 T ha t i s t he e vi de nc e b y s ti pu la ti on . T ha t i s

23 a s ti pu la te d f a ct . T ha t i s t he e vi de nc e y o u a re t o

24 consider this morning within your deliberations

25 contextually and concurrently with the following


13/35

13

1 instruction:

2 Casey 3949 Punitive Damages Corporate

3 Defendant Second Phase as amended by agreement:

4 Y ou m us t d ec id e t he a mo un t, i f a ny , t ha t y ou

5 should award in punitive damages. The purposes of

6 punitive damages are to punish a wrongdoer for the

7 conduct it harmed the Plaintiff and to discourage

8 similar conduct in the future.

9 There is no fixed formula for determining the

10 amount of punitive damages, and you are not required to

11 award any punitive damages. Any amount of punitive

12 damages you award must bear a reasonable relationship to

13 Candace Conti's harm.

14 If you decide to award punitive damages, you

15 should consider all of the following factors separately

16 in determining the amount:

17 (A) How reprehensible was Defendant,

18 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Inc.'s conduct?

19 In deciding how reprehensible a defendant's

20 conduct was, you may consider, among other factors:

21 (1) whether the conduct caused physical harm;

22 (2) whether the Defendant disregarded the

23 health or safety of others;

24 (3) whether the Defendant's conduct involved

25 a pattern or practice;


14/35

14

1 (4) whether the Defendant acted with trickery

2 or deceit.

3 (B) In view of Watchtower Bible and Tract

4 Society, Inc.'s financial condition, what amount is

5 necessary to punish it and discourage future wrongful

6 conduct?

7 You may not increase the punitive damages

8 award above an amount that is otherwise appropriate

9 merely because Defendant has substantial financial

10 r es ou rc es . A ny a wa rd y ou i mp os e m a y n ot e xc ee d t h at

11 defendant's ability to pay.

12 P un it iv e d am ag es m ay n ot b e u se d t o p un is h a

13 defendant for the impact of its alleged misconduct of

14 persons other than Candace Conti.

15 Mr. Simons.

16

17 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. SIMONS

18 MR. SIMONS: Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you

19 all once again for your dedication and your service and

20 the seriousness of which you have approached your tasks

21 in this case.

22 A nd w e d o h av e t he o ne r em ai ni ng i ss ue f or u s

23 t o d is cu ss a nd f or y ou t o d et er mi ne , a nd t ha t i s t he

24 question, as his Honor has put forth in the instruction,

25 of punitive damages to discourage future conduct in the


15/35

15

1 future that would be similar to what harmed Candace

2 Conti in this case.

3 A nd i f y ou b el ie ve , f ro m a ll y ou h av e s ee n

4 and heard, that Watchtower New York and its managing

5 agents, the governing body, fully appreciate and

6 understand that the policy of secrecy which allows for

7 an identified child sex offender to strike again is

8 w ro ng a nd t ha t i t w as w ro ng i n 1 98 3 a nd i t r em ai ns w ro ng

9 t od ay , t he n t he re i s n o n ee d f or f ur th er d am ag es o f a

10 punitive nature.

11 Bu t if yo u fi nd f ro m a ll y ou h av e s ee n a nd

12 heard that the understanding and acceptance of the need

13 t o c ha ng e t ha t p ol ic y a re n ot t he re , t he n t he l aw

14 authorizes you and gives you the power, through the use

15 of punitive damages, to provide an incentive to provide

16 discouragement, if you will, of future repetitions of

17 the type that we have learned about here.

18 A nd i f w e c ou ld l oo k a t t he i ns tr uc ti on s v er y

19 briefly:

20 "The purposes of the punitive damages

21 are to punish for the conduct that harmed

22 Candace Conti and to discourage similar

23 conduct in the future."

24 L et 's l oo k a t t he c ri te ri a t ha t w e a re g oi ng

25 t o b e c on si de ri ng . T he re a re a n um be r o f f ac to rs t he


16/35

16

1 instruction has laid out for consideration, including:

2 "How reprehensible was the Defendant's

3 conduct?"

4 This was the question that you previously

5 decided with regard to what is despicable conduct,

6 deliberate indifference.

7 And, specifically, we look at whether the

8 c on du ct c au se d p h ys ic al h ar m. W e k n ow t ha t i t d id .

9 We look at whether the Defendant disregarded

10 t he h ea lt h a n d s a fe ty o f o t he rs . A nd t ha t h a s b e en y ou r

11 f in di ng . T ha t i s w ha t t he p ol ic y' s r o ot a nd t he

12 i nf or ma ti on t ha t w e s aw i n t he e ar li er p ar t o f t he t ri al

13 established by clear and convincing evidence.

14 "Whether the conduct involved a pattern and

15 practice."

16 A nd w e k no w t ha t i t d id b ec au se t he B od y o f

17 Elder Letter must be followed by every elder in every

18 congregation throughout the country with no power, no

19 discretion to deviate whatsoever.

20 A nd s o, e ve n t ho ug h y ou h av e f ou nd t ha t t he

21 Watchtower's fault was 27 percent of what caused Candace

22 Conti's harm, they are 100 percent responsible for this

23 p ol ic y a n d i t s e n fo rc em en t. A nd t ha t i s w ha t t h is

24 p ar ti cu la r p ar t o f t he i ss ue t ha t y ou a re n ow g oi ng t o

25 address concerns.


17/35

17

1 "Whether the Defendants acted with deceit or

2 trickery."

3 A nd I w ou ld s ub mi t t o y ou , L ad ie s a nd

4 Gentlemen, that allowing a known child sex offender to

5 s it i n t he c on gr eg at io n a nd t o g o o ut i nt o f ie ld s er vi ce

6 a nd t o h ide wh o he i s f ro m th e pa re nt s a nd f ro m t he

7 others in the congregation who could act to protect

8 c hi ld re n i s d ec ei t. A nd t ha t i s t he r oo t o f t he p ro bl em

9 of this policy.

10 The second category that is listed is whether

11 o r n ot , i n v ie w o f t he f in an ci al c on di ti on , t he re i s a n

12 appropriate amount to discourage future wrongful

13 conduct.

14 You may not increase the punitive damage

15 award above an amount that is otherwise appropriate

16 merely because this Defendant is a billion-dollar plus

17 organization.

18 We d o n ot p un is h t hat -- w el l, t ha t i s n ot

19 t he p ur po se o f t h e p un it iv e d am ag es . H ow ev er , i t i s

20 appropriate to consider it in determining the amount of

21 punitive damages just for two reasons.

22 F ir st o f a ll , w e c an no t e xc ee d t he

23 D ef en da nt 's a bi li ty t o p a y. T ha t, I d on 't t hi nk i s a

24 relevant factor, given the amount of assets that are

25 here.


18/35

18

1 And, secondly, the fact that they have

2 substantial resources is not a reason to increase the

3 award above what is appropriate.

4 B ut t ur ni ng t ha t a ro un d i s a ls o n ot

5 appropriate to award less than what is necessary to

6 a cc om pl is h t h e g o al h er e. A nd t ha t i s t o c h an ge t hi s

7 policy, discourage it from being conducted in the

8 f ut ur e. T ha t i s t he m is si on t ha t C a nd ac e C o nt i s e t o ut

9 on three years ago.

10 C an w e g o b ac k t o t he b eg in ni ng ?

11 Th er e i s a ru le y ou m ust f ol lo w. An d t ha t i s

12 t ha t t he a mo un t o f p un it iv e d am ag es , i f y ou s o c ho os e t o

13 award, must bear a reasonable relationship to Candace

14 Conti's harm.

15 Y ou h av e f ou nd t ha t t o b e i n a d ol la r a mo un t.

16 And there was really not contrary evidence or argument

17 a s t o t ha t a mo un t.

18 An d so we m us t fi nd : Wh at i s a r ea so na bl e

19 relationship if you choose to award these kinds of

20 damages to the harm?

21 A nd s om e p eo pl e m ay v ie w t ha t a s a o ne -t o- on e

22 ratio, that the amount of the damages necessary to

23 d is co ur ag e t he c on du ct i n t he f ut ur e i s e qu al t o t he

24 a mo un t o f t he d am ag es o f t he h ar m t ha t C an da ce C on ti

25 suffered.


19/35

19

1 Some people may feel that this is childhood

2 s ex ua l a bu se , a nd i t h as b ee n f ou nd t o b e d es pi ca bl e

3 conduct, and that amount should be ten times the amount

4 of harm that Candace Conti has suffered.

5 I w oul d s ub mi t to y ou th at i n th e l aw , w e

6 have a principle called Treble damages. And it assesses

7 a p un is hm en t w he re a p ar ty w as f ou nd t o h av e a ct ed i n a

8 manner that requires and is appropriate to administer

9 punishment by awarding three times the amount of the

10 actual harm that is measured in compensable damages.

11 And I would submit to you, Ladies and Gentlemen, that

12 that is the appropriate measure here.

13 I w ou ld l ik e t o s ay , o n b eh al f o f C an da ce

14 C on ti , t ha t y ou w e t ru st i n y ou r j ud gm en t a nd w e w il l

15 a cc ep t it . T ha nk y ou .

16 T HE C OU RT : M r. S ch na ck .

17

18 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. SCHNACK

19 M R. S CH NA CK : L ad ie s a nd G en tl em en o f t he

20 j ur y, t he j ud ge h as i ns tr uc te d y ou t ha t i t i s y ou r

21 c ho ic e t o a wa rd o r n o t t o a wa rd p un it iv e d a ma ge s. Y ou

22 h av e b ee n r ea d t he i ns tr uc ti on a nd y ou h av e s ee n i t

23 there.

24 D oe s W at ch to we r n ee d t o b e p un is he d? T he

25 policies of Watchtower continue to evolve. You heard


20/35

20

1 Monica Applewhite testify that Watchtower has published

2 articles and educational materials for parents, for its

3 church members starting in the 1970s and into the '80s

4 a nd i t c on ti nu es u p t o t he p re se nt d ay .

5 Those materials were in the forefront of

6 educational materials for parents and for members in

7 this regard.

8 Plaintiff's counsel has made a lot of the

9 J ul y 1 , 1 98 9 l et te r. I nd ee d, t ha t' s w ha t h e r ef er re d

10 h er e t o t o da y. H ow ev er , y o u a ls o h e ar d M r . S hu st er

11 t es ti fy t ha t t h at w as n ev er t he l as t w o rd . I t w a sn 't

12 the be-all end-all on policies.

13 So l et me j us t br ie fl y g o th ro ug h a f ew o f

14 t he o th er A ll B od ie s o f E ld er s L et te rs t ha t w er e i n

15 evidence before you today.

16 Remember the March 23, 1992 letter? Several

17 references there that the elders in the congregation

18 should be conscious of victims of abuse, treat them with

19 thoroughness and kindness, that you should be tenderly

20 compassionate to them.

21 I t a ls o s ay s i n t ha t s am e l et te r:

22 " If a c ur re nt c as e o f c hi ld a bu se

23 comes to light in the congregation, the elders

24 s ho ul d d o w ha t t he y c an to pr ot ec t t he

25 children from further abuse. These policies


21/35

21

1 are evolving as we go forward."

2 In evidence was the August 1, 1995 letter.

3 There it says:

4 "Steps should be taken to protect the

5 child or other children from further sexual

6 abuse once abuse became apparent."

7 T he e ld er s, t oo , w an te d t o a ct - - s ho ul d a ct

8 in a way that demonstrates their protective care since

9 the word "overseer" as that's used within the church,

10 carries the thought of one who watches over in guarding

11 and shepherding the flock.

12 I n t ha t s am e l et te r, t he A ug us t 1 , 1 99 5

13 l et te r t ha t y ou h ad i n e vi de nc e a nd t ha t y ou h ad i n t he

14 r oo m w it h y ou , i t a ls o s ay s o n t he f ir st p ag e t ha t:

15 "It would be appropriate to talk very

16 frankly with the abuser that he should never

17 b e i n t he pr es en ce of a ch il d w it ho ut an ot he r

18 adult being present."

19 An d ju st o ne l ast o ne he re t hi s m orn in g. T he

20 M ar ch 1 4, 1 99 7 A ll B od ie s o f E ld er s L et te r t ha t w as

21 b ef or e y o u. T ha t a d dr es se d t h e i s su e o f w he n a m em be r

22 m ov es f ro m o n e c on gr eg at io n t o a n ot he r. A nd i f t h at

23 m em be r i s k no wn t o b e a c hi ld m ol es te r, t ha t l et te r

24 directed the elders in the local congregations to:

25 "Outline his background, including


22/35

22

1 any needs for cautions that should be provided

2 t o t he b od y o f e ld er s. "

3 That letter would be presented to the

4 c on gr eg at io n t o w hi ch t ha t p er so n w ou ld m ov e. A nd s o,

5 again, that's taking steps to help prevent child abuse.

6 M r. S hu st er a ls o t es ti fi ed , w he n h e w as u p o n

7 t he s ta nd , t ha t t he c hu rc h h as a l on g h is to ry , s in ce h e

8 has been an elder, since '79, that child abusers cannot

9 be appointed to serve as elders, as ministerial servants

10 or pioneers.

11 That was reiterated in the March 14, 1997

12 that I just referenced.

13 The policy of Watchtower has continued to

14 emerge on a case-by-case basis in which the Service

15 Department elders sent letters to the local

16 congregations, to the local elders to strongly warn, if

17 they have a known child abuser within their

18 congregation, that he should not be alone with children,

19 a nd h ow t he e ld er s c an d ea l w it h t ha t i f t he m em be r t ha t

20 is an abuser violates those instructions.

21 N ow , I h av e n o d ou bt t ha t y ou r v er di ct

22 yesterday has already sent a message to Watchtower, and

23 w e w il l s oo n s ee a no th er A ll B od ie s o f E ld er s L et te r

24 addressing the very issues that were raised.

25 On e th in g I w ou ld a sk yo u to k ee p i n mi nd .


23/35

23

1 The Jehovah's Witnesses Church is not the Catholic

2 Church, that it has had verdict after verdict after

3 v er di ct o ve r t he y e ars . I t' s b een in t he p re ss . We a re

4 a ll a wa re o f i t. T his i s t he f ir st v er di ct t hat t he

5 J eh ov ah 's W it ne ss es c hu rc h h as f ac ed . S o, a ga in , i t i s

6 not the Catholic Church with multitudes of cases over a

7 couple of decades.

8 W e h av e b ee n o n t he t el ep ho ne , b ot h l as t

9 night and early this morning, speaking with the managing

10 directors of Watchtower and the elders in the --

11 M R. S IM ON S: I 'm g oi ng t o o bj ec t, y ou r H on or .

12 It is not evidence.

13 TH E CO UR T: W el l, i t i s a rgu me nt . B ut ,

14 c ou ns el , w hy d on 't y ou g o f or wa rd f or a m in ut e t o m ak e

15 s ur e i t i s l eg it .

16 MR. SCHNACK: Your Honor, I didn't interrupt

17 his argument.

18 THE COURT: Understood.

19 MR . SC HN AC K: A s I me nt io ne d, we w er e on th e

20 phone to managing directors of Watchtower and to the

21 e ld er s i n t he S er vi ce D ep ar tm en t. A nd I c an t el l y o u

22 t he y a re s tu nn ed b y t he v er di ct . A ga in , I m en ti on ed , i t

23 i s t he f irs t o ne . A nd i t' s, i nde ed , t he f irs t o ne w e

24 a re a ll a wa re o f t ha t h as e ve r f ou nd l ia bi li ty o n a

25 congregation in a church based on a congregation member


24/35

24

1 causing harm to the child of another member.

2 However, I sincerely believe, and I put this

3 t o y ou , t ha t W at ch to we r d oe s n ot n ee d t o b e p un is he d b y

4 another monetary award.

5 W hy i s t ha t?

6 Ms. Conti said she wanted to change policies.

7 T ha t' s w hy s he b ro ug ht t hi s s ui t. An d w e f ee l b ad f or

8 M s. C on ti . B ut I c an a ssu re y ou, a nd I c an a ssu re h er ,

9 that Watchtower's policies continue to evolve. And I

10 can safely say that, with her verdict yesterday, Ms.

11 C on ti h as s uc ce ed ed . I e nc ou ra ge y ou t o a w ar d n o

12 punitive damages in this case.

13 A ga in , I t ha nk y ou f or y ou r s er vi ce , f or y ou r

14 time and your attention.

15 Thank you, your Honor.

16 T HE C OU RT : A ny r eb ut ta l, M r. S im on s?

17 M R. S IM ON S: Y es .

18

19 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT BY MR. SIMONS

20 BY MR. SIMONS:

21 Q. I am sad to say that I did not hear that the

22 policy will be changed.

23 I a m s ad t o h ea r t ha t t he g ov er ni ng b od y h as

24 n ot s en t a p er so n t o t hi s e vi de nt ia ry p ha se o f t he t ri al

25 to so testify.


25/35

25

1 I a m s ad t o h ea r t ha t we a re st il l t alk in g

2 about Dr. Applewhite, who said great education program

3 f or p ar en ts . I 'm n ot s ay in g a t hi ng a bo ut t he c hi ld s ex

4 abuse prevention program.

5 I a m s ad t o h ea r f ro m c ou ns el 's c om me nt s t ha t

6 we have representations but no evidence.

7 W e h av e n o w ay t o b el ie ve t ha t t hi s p ol ic y

8 w il l b e c ha ng ed i n a ny m an ne r o th er t ha n f ro m t he

9 o ut si de , b y t he p ow er t ha t t he l aw g iv es t o y ou .

10 And, therefore, I ask you to exercise it.

11 Thank you.

12 TH E CO UR T: O ka y. Al l ri gh t. M r. B ai li ff ,

13 w ou ld y ou b e k in d e no ug h t o p ut t he j ur y - - I b el ie ve

14 they are in Department 21.

15 Y ou h av e b ee n t he m os t m ob il e j ur y I h av e

16 had. So, again, thank you for your consideration,

17 patience and mobility.


19 were heard outside the presence of jurors)

20 TH E CO UR T: A ll r ig ht . C ou ns el , I w il l h and

21 y ou t he i ns tr uc ti on . I wa nt y ou t o a ll t ak e a l oo k a t

22 it again as modified and the special verdict form before

23 I g iv e i t t o t he j ur y.

24 S o, I 'l l s ta rt w it h M r. S im on s a nd t he n t o

25 Mr. Schnack.


26/35

26

1 M R. S IM ON S: T o C ha nc e?

2 THE COURT: No. Ms. Eckert.

3 M R. S CH NA CK : T he se a re b ot h f in e, J ud ge .

4 M R. S IM ON S: Ye s, t he y a re .

5 T HE C OU RT : C ou ns el 's , e ac h a nd a ll , h av e

6 reviewed the special verdict form and the Casey

7 instruction as revised by agreement which will now be

8 given to the jury for their consideration during

9 deliberations.

10 Al l ri gh t. A nd t he c ou rt wi ll s ta nd i n

11 recess, pending --

12 O h, l et 's t al k a l it tl e b it - - I , o f c ou rs e

13 w il l d o t he sa me t hi ng I h ave d on e w it h y ou. I w oul d

14 l ik e t o h av e y ou a l it tl e c lo se r. An d i f y ou ne ed a

15 room, I will try to find one for you. But you are

16 w el co me t o h a ng a ro un d t h e c o ur tr oo m. O r i f y ou n ee d

17 a no th er p la ce , I w il l t ry t o f in d o ne f or y ou .

18 (Break taken)


20 were heard in the presence of jurors)

21 TH E CO UR T: A ll r ig ht . T he r eco rd s ho ul d

22 reflect that Ms. Kraetsch is here with us by agreement

23 w it h M s . C o nt i. M r. S im on s' p ar tn er i s h e re , M r .

24 J as po vi ce i s s it ti ng i n f or h im a t t hi s t i me . C or re ct ,

25 Ms. Conti?


27/35

27

1 M S. C ON TI : C or re ct .

2 TH E CO UR T: D o we h av e a v er di ct ?

3 M R. F OR EP ER SO N: W e d o, y ou r H on or .

4 TH E CO UR T: A ll r ig ht . M ad am Cl er k, i f y ou

5 would be kind enough to read the verdict.

6 T HE C LE RK : L ad ie s a nd G en tl em en o f t he j ur y,

7 y ou w il l n ow l is te n t o t he r ea di ng o f t he v er di ct

8 omitting the title of court and cause.

9 S pe ci al V er di ct , P ha se 2 : W e, t he j ur y i n

10 the above-entitled action, answer the question submitted

11 t o u s a s f o ll ow s:

12 Q ue st io n 1 : D id y ou a wa rd p un it iv e d am ag es

13 against The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New

14 York, Incorporated?

15 A ns we r: Y es .

16 I f y ou r a ns we r t o N um be r 1 i s y es , w ha t

17 amount of punitive damages do you award?

18 A ns we r: $ 21 ,0 00 ,0 01 . D at ed J un e 1 4, 2 01 2,

19 Presiding Juror, Hugh Huey.

20 TH E CO UR T: M r. H ue y, i s t ha t th e ju ry 's

21 verdict?

22 MR. FOREPERSON: Yes, your Honor.

23 TH E CO UR T: A ll r ig ht . W ou ld yo u li ke t he

24 jury polled?

25 M R. S CH NA CK : Ye s, y ou r H on or .


28/35

28

1 THE COURT: All right. May I have the

2 verdict form?

3 F ir st o f a ll , y ou w er e a sk ed a q ue st io n:

4 Do you award punitive damages against The

5 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.?

6 The answer is yes.

7 How many voted yes?

8 (Jurors raised hands)

9 TH E CO UR T: A ll r ig ht . T he r eco rd m ay

10 reflect ten jurors voted yes.

11 A ll r ig ht . A nd t he n h av in g a ns we re d t he

12 question "yes," the amount of punitive damages awarded

13 is $21,000,001.

14 How many jurors voted that punitive damages

15 be awarded in this matter against Watchtower Bible and

16 T ra ct S oc ie ty o f N ew Y or k, I nc . i n t he a mo un t o f

17 $21,000,001?


19 TH E CO UR T: T he r ec or d ma y r ef le ct - - le t m e

20 make sure I got the accounting right.


22 T HE C OU RT : N in e j ur or s v ot ed f or t ha t

23 verdict.

24 That being the case, the jury having been

25 polled, this portion of the verdict is now entered.


29/35

29

1 S ev er al w ee ks a go I i nv it ed y ou i nt o m y

2 c ou rt ro om , a n d I s ai d, " We lc om e t o j u dg in g. " A nd I a ls o

3 t ol d y ou t ha t t he o nl y t hi ng a bo ut j ud ge s i s w he n t he y

4 m ak e t o ug h d e ci si on s. I t hi nk w e a ll a gr ee t hi s h as

5 been a very difficult case.

6 I t ol d t he l aw ye rs e ar ly o n o ut si de o f y ou r

7 p re se nc e, t hi s i s a c as e t ha t i s t ou gh o n t hi s j ud ge ,

8 tough on the professionals involved, and tough on the

9 jurors.

10 A nd I d on 't t hi nk t he re i s a ny m ys te ry w hy

11 t ha t i s t he c as e. T he s ub je ct m at te r, i ts n at ur e, i ts

12 evolution, its fundamental violation of trust -- and

13 let's be clear, that most decent human beings would

14 prefer to have trust in their lives, whether it's their

15 friends, their coaches or whatnot.

16 And clearly and equally the circumstance, I

17 don't think anyone of good character would wish or would

18 h av e a ny s up po rt r el at iv e a t a ll t o t he n at ur e o f t he

19 circumstance and conduct.

20 This case was further complicated by the

21 p as sa ge o f t ime in t er ms o f a ll t ha t h as g on e o n. A nd

22 throughout, and life judging, people can have very

23 different opinions, as you did, in terms of your

24 discussions as to what the result should be.

25 This was a tough case. And I told you when


30/35

30

1 w e s tar te d t hat my p re fe re nc e i s n ot t o d o a l ot o f

2 s id eb ar s. A nd, a ga in , a s I si t h er e, I m ad e a n um be r o f

3 decisions about what evidence you could hear. That's

4 w ha t j ud ges d o. A nd t he re w as a l ot o f c omp le xi ty i n

5 t er ms o f t he t im e a nd t he n at ur e a nd c ir cu ms ta nc e a s t o

6 both sides.

7 M y g oa l - - a nd p er ha ps o th er 's g oa ls - - w hi ch

8 I m ad e - - w as t o t ry t o f as hi on i t s o th at a ny p rej ud ic e

9 a ny o f u s h ad w ou ld n ot b e v is it ed u po n y ou r

10 deliberation. I made in limine instructions in this

11 c as e. I di d i t be ca us e I t ho ug ht i t w as t he r ig ht t hi ng

12 to do as a judge.

13 I w ill sa y to e ac h o f yo u, h ow y ou c arr ie d

14 o ut y ou r t as ks - - a nd , c an di dl y, I d on 't s ay t hi s i n

15 e ve ry c as e - - i t i s n ot a bo ut m on ey , i t' s n ot a bo ut t he

16 n at ur e, a nd w it h t he v er di ct a s a m at te r o f m on ey - -

17 e ac h o f y ou c ou ld - - I h ad a n a lt er na te a ro un d h er e f or

18 t he l as t se ve n a nd a h al f d ay s -- m ay I s ay t hat th at i s

19 a n u nus ua l c irc um st an ce . I t i s. B ut h ow y ou w en t a bo ut

20 your task was quite impressive.

21 Certainly, I think early on you understood

22 t he s ol em ni ty o f w ha t t hi s c as e w as a bo ut a nd w ha t y ou r

23 t as k i s a s j ur or s. An d h ow y ou d id i t w it ho ut a ny t in ge

24 of what certainly I or anyone else in this courtroom

25 a gr ee s w it h y ou r v er di ct , h ow y ou w en t a bo ut i t, t he


31/35

31

1 decency you showed of the fundamental understanding of

2 the importance of what you considered was obvious,

3 c er ta in ly t o m e, a nd I w ou ld h op e t o a ll p ar ti es

4 involved in this case.

5 Th is i s s er io us s tu ff . A nd a s a s oc ie ty , t he

6 c ha ll en ge - - y ou r c ha ll en ge a s j ur or s i s t o s it i n

7 judgment.

8 B ut t he c ha ll en ge i s: H ow c an e ve ry on e g et

9 better in terms of recognition, dealing and whatnot?

10 A nd t he re i s n o m ag ic b al l t o t ha t.

11 B ut w ha t i s h ea rt en in g i s t ha t e ac h o f y ou

12 could take the substantial challenge here for the amount

13 of days involved in your everyday lives and render as

14 diligent a judgment collectively as you did.

15 Mr. Huey, I can say this: You had a number

16 of questions. Each of those questions was thoughtful,

17 well-paced, in terms of the time of deliberations up to

18 t ha t p oi nt , a nd i ns ig ht fu l, i nc lu di ng T ab le A . S o w e

19 knew.

20 But, again, we can all have disagreements as

21 t o w ha t h as g on e h er e a nd t he r es ul t a nd w ha tn ot , b ut

22 anybody objectively observing knew that you were very

23 s er io us a bo ut w ha t y ou w er e d o in g. A nd , f o r t ha t, I

24 w il l, I d o, I h av e t ha nk ed y ou b ef or e, b ut I t ha nk y ou

25 a s d e ep ly f ro m t hi s p o si ti on a s I c an . B ec au se ,


32/35

32

1 again --

2 I a ct ua ll y h ad o ne o f m y s on s s ay , " Da d, y ou r

3 hair seems to have gotten a little whiter."

4 T he h on es t a ns we r i s: I d id n' t k no w i t c ou ld

5 g et a ny w hi te r. A nd i t p er hap s d id .

6 But the respect you showed everyone, the

7 a mo un t o f t im e y ou d ed ic at ed t o t he t as k, h ow y ou w en t

8 a bo ut i t is -- I t ol d y ou w he n we fi rs t m e t e a ch

9 other -- it is what distinguishes this country from all

10 others.

11 I a m h op ef ul - - a nd p le as e u nd er st an d i n

12 t er ms o f t he m an ag em en t o f t hi s c as e a s a j ud ic ia l

13 officer, in terms of the interruptions, in terms of the

14 t im in g. No w, a lo t o f t hi s, a s a m at te r o f l aw, i s w ha t

15 w e w i ll c al l a c as e o f f ir st i mp re ss io n. O ka y.

16 Because, again, as society evolves its understanding of

17 t he k in d o f r es po ns e t o t he se s or ts o f i ss ue s, t he l aw

18 is catching up also.

19 And honestly, because I have said it outside

20 of you, the quality of professional lawyering in this

21 c as e w as a s g oo d a s i t g et s f or t he se l aw ye rs i n t er ms

22 of their professional integrity, their skills and

23 w ha tn ot . T hi s i s n ot t he t ype of c as e w he re y ou a re

24 going to see inexperienced lawyers.

25 And I said to them, as I will say to you,


33/35

33

1 t ha t, a s d if fi cu lt a c as e a s t hi s i s, a nd w as , o n a ll

2 a nd e ac h o f u s, m y j ob w as c on si de ra bl y a id ed b y t he

3 professionalism and skills of all lawyers involved in

4 t hi s p ro ce ed in g. I d on 't s ay t ha t i n m an y c as es e it he r.

5 B ut t hi s i s a c as e, a s a m at te r o f p ro fe ss io na li sm ,

6 needs good lawyers.

7 So , ag ai n, I w ant t o t ha nk y ou . I n a m om en t,

8 you will be free to go. You can choose, as is your

9 e le ct io n, t o s pe ak t o a c ou ns el o r n ot .

10 A ga in , o nc e I e xc us e y ou - - I 'm g oi ng t o t ak e

11 a l oo k a t m y p ar ti ng i ns tr uc ti on s o I d on 't f or ge t

12 anything.

13 You are free to go. I think we all agree

14 t ha t y ou ha ve d one y ou r s er vic e. A nd I w is h I c ou ld s ay

15 t o y ou , b ec au se o f t he q ua li ty o f t he s er vi ce , i t i s

16 attainable, that you won't hear from the system for

17 several years because you have earned your time.

18 A s I t ol d y ou t hi s m or ni ng , I l ik e t o a lw ay s

19 j ud ge m ys el f i n t er ms o f h ow I d ea l w it h j ur ie s, a nd I

20 will spend my experience in, literally my lifetime, in

21 t he c ou rt ro om . I 'm g oi ng t o b e b et te r, i n t e rm s o f

22 communication and be sensitive in a bifurcated trial as

23 to that instruction as to whose judgment it is.

24 A l ot o f w hat I d id w as d esi gn ed no t to t il t

25 t he w he el o n b eh al f o f e it he r p ar ty h er e. An d i t wa s a


34/35

34

1 v er y - - c an di dl y, I t ri ed t o b e v er y c ar ef ul i n

2 e ve ry th in g I di d. B ut w ha t I d id , w he n I wa s a t ria l

3 lawyer, after every trial, I assessed what worked, what

4 d id n' t, a nd h ow I c oul d h av e b een b et te r. An d I t el l

5 y ou , in a c ase l ik e th is , a nd i n t erm s o f no t on ly i n

6 i ts n at ur e a nd b ec au se o f i t, b ut i n t er ms o f h ow t he

7 process evolved.

8 I d o t he s ame t hi ng a s t he j ud ge . A nd t her e

9 a re a c ou pl e t hi ng s t ha t I h av e l ea rn ed d ea li ng w it h y ou

10 i n t hi s c as e a nd t he q ua li ty o f l aw ye rs I h av e h er e t ha t

11 I will do differently the next time.

12 So give me a minute. I want to make sure I

13 have covered everything. That was hardly a written

14 s pe ec h. L et m e t a ke a l oo k a t m y p a rt in g i n st ru ct io ns .

15 Otherwise, at which time I will dismiss you.

16 A ll r ig ht . A ga in , I 'm g oi ng t o d is mi ss y ou .

17 Y ou a re f re e t o --

18 Madame Clerk, you may record the verdict.

19 I w ill no w di sm is s yo u. A ga in , y ou m ay s pe ak

20 w it h c ou ns el i f t h at i s y ou r w i sh . O th er wi se , y ou h av e

21 n o o b li ga ti on t o d o s o. E nj oy t he e ve ni ng , a n d t h an k

22 you for your service.

23 (Proceedings were concluded at 4:23 p.m.)

24

25 --oOo--


35/35

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 I, KATHRYN LLOYD, CSR No. 5955, Certified Shorthand

3 Reporter, certify:

4 That the foregoing proceedings were taken before me

5 a t t he t im e a nd p la ce t he re in s et f or th , a t w hi ch t im e

6 the witnesses were put under oath by the court clerk;

7 That the testimony of the witnesses, the questions

8 propounded, and all objections and statements made at

9 the time of the examination were recorded

10 stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed;

11 That the foregoing is a true and correct transcript

12 of my shorthand notes so taken.

13 I fu rt he r c er ti fy th at I a m n ot a r el at iv e o r

14 employee of any attorney of the parties, nor financially

15 interested in the action.

16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws

17 of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

18 Dated this____ day of _____, 2012.

19

20 ____________________________

21 KATHRYN LLOYD,CSR 5955

22

23

24

25

Watchtower: Jury Trial Day 10, Candace Conti v. Watchtower

Documents

Transcript of Watchtower: Jury Trial Day 10, Candace Conti v. Watchtower