Brauer's item has reader comments, and I found that thread worthwhile.
Regan, here.
Brauer, here.
Regan's coverage is basic reporting.
Brauer mixes in a bit of editorial belief.
Nobody except the Deets, has reported, to my knowledge, about jury selection, how it went, whether preemptive challenges or challenges for cause arose, etc. It is a very important aspect of how everything else may unwind - who the lawyers and witnesses will be talking to and trying to convince.
That lack of public reporting makes it even harder to predict (blindly guess) what outcome will arise once the jury deliberates.
Similarly, aside from reporting of a check and an invoice for five thousand dollars involving the Plaintiff, it is unclear what, besides the Johnny Northside blog post itself, (along with post comments), is in evidence beyond witness testimony.
Given that Regan and Brauer reduce a day's testimony into hitting "highlights" it is interesting to see what each keys onto as a highlight, and what it implies, indirectly, about the reporter's own outlook and beliefs. Regan's byline bio on Daily Planet identifies her as "a Minneapolis theater artist and freelance writer." Having one with a theater background cover this trial is insightful. Brauer we are familiar with, he's a long-time news reporter and editorial commentator.
It's probably too late to post a sidebar poll to see how readers might guess a trial outcome from the scant coverage, a "Hoff wins" vs "Moore wins" choice, (with or without a "Don't care" option).
_________UPDATE__________
There is more.
The above was started from Regan's post, she linked to Brauer. Both are helpful. And I posted.
Googling, indeed there is more. First, there was reporting on jury selection, the Deets, here, where the name Ed Kohler appears a lot, but the post itself is unsigned. Who Ed Kohler is etc., is unfamiliar to me, I've seen the blog a time or two before, but it's not one I "follow."
[That Deets header text - it just seems like words someone would fictionalize as speech by a comandant of the Navy's Guantanemo base, in a movie or something.]
Anyway - Back to the substance of the Deets post. Very detailed. Most interestingly, the ending reflections are how a juror might size things up - which I presume Gotfread in his closing argument will suggest as a very sensible line of thinking, one that holds water, despite whatever impassioned closing remarks Clark makes on Moore's behalf:
One comment from Hoff’s June 2009 post that’s been mentioned in the case, is this one:
Anonymous said…
I suggest we all write to the Board of Regents – they can be reached right here:
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/regent_contact%20info.html
Be sure to include printed pages of blogs, news articles and other documentation of the type of quality leader that Mr Moore exemplifies.
June 21, 2009 7:24 PM
This, Clark seems to be claiming, was approved by Hoff as an endorsement of the behavior being suggested by the anonymous commenter. Frankly, I see this type of comment every day on blogs and newspaper websites. Coalition builder comments seem mundane to me since few people will actually take action on what they read. And, in the end, if action is taken, it will only have an impact if the action was justified. For example, let’s assume for a second that people who read Hoff’s blog post from Jun 21, 2009. Then read the comments, including the one quoted above. And then actually did contact the Board of Regents. That alone would not get Jerry Moore fired. I’m sure people contact the Board of Regents on a regular basis asking people working for the U of MN to be fired. In the end, if they are fired, it is because of an anonymous comment on a blog? Or, is it because legitimate concerns were raised about an employee?
Which brings me to the questions I haven’t seen addressed: Why is Jerry Moore suing John Hoff over his lost job at UROC rather than suing the U of MN? If this was a wrongful termination, wouldn’t the U of MN be the place to sue? Don’t they have deeper pockets than Hoff? No matter what Hoff or Hoff’s commenter’s wrote on Hoff’s blog, it sure seems like it was the U of MN who weighed the facts that were brought to light and decided that Jerry Moore had to go.
[italics added] It makes sense to me. Why is there the empty chair? If U.Minn. severed the relationship wrongly, why are they not a party? And if U.Minn. severed the relationship with cause, how is Johnny Northside responsible for that intervening independent decision (aka intervening proximate cause)? Moore sued his former employer JACC, the one before UROC, but not UROC. That suit is multi-party, as apparent per this online docket in two parts, parties and activity (segmented for readability, when images are clicked to enlarge and read):
[Readability is still awful. It is a Blogger fault with long items. Without chopping the thing into two parts it would have been illegible. To shorten it I left the disbursements part off. I would give readers a direct link, were one available, but the courts march you through a series of pages where any attempt to directly link fails.]
"Under advisement" means no decision has been completed and put on file with the Clerk's office and docketed, as of the last dated entry.
Under Minn. Stat. Sect. 554.03, Hoff has a privilege and immunity for "public participation," speech or other activity genuinely aimed at procuring a favorable governmental action. Favorable, in Hoff's genuine view I presume, was getting Moore removed from his UROC government job, the question being one of public interest. To overcome that privilege and immunity, clear and convincing proof of a tort, (in all requisite elements including proximate cause), is needed.
And as the Deets says, Hoff did not fire Moore from UROC, instead UROC fired him from UROC, presumably in a way that, so far, has not led Moore to sue UROC despite not a habit but at least knowledge of how to sue an employer over a perceived wrongful termination, (per the above docket).
With clear and convincing proof required I guess that if Moore felt he had evidence that but for Johnny Northside's actions, he would not have been let go by UROC, then the first witness he would have called would have been a UROC or higher University official testifying exactly so.
That would negate the presumed intervening proximate cause defense - that the termination was because officials believed it to be a proper step, and community complaints, or publishing, might at best be a notice event, not a discisionary one. That's really saying what the Deets said better and more tightly.
And it is Moore's burden of proof. It is not something Hoff has to disprove.
With that kind of "but for ..." witness testimony by an employer agent so far not in evidence, either way, there is only an empty chair where an occupied one is expected.
Jill Clark has a big rock to push up hill to win this one on causation in fact, and proximate cause. Giving notice to government, especially if true notice as Hoff claims, should not be enough for the case to even go to a jury. A dismissal as a matter of law arguably would be proper when no version of the evidence and reasonable inferences from it can sustain one or more required elements of an action that plaintiff has the burden to prove.
The common sense Deets reaction is what I'd hope to expect from even the slowest witted juror, given the empty chair and no explanation based on evidence for it.
Again, I could be wrong, and it would not be the first time I have guessed wrong over what the future might bring. I've no crystal ball to help me. Also, not having attended the trial, only reading accounts, Clark may have covered requisite elements. I do not know, and my understanding is neither side has closed its case in chief yet.
Last image, this Google:
Readers can do the same search. I could not get the first two hits to the U's Daily to work, there was a failed connection error. However, I got the Google Cache to work for each of the first two hits, here, and here are the cache links, Robert Downs having authored both items. This probably is helpful background for readers to understand current events, but it might be beyond what a judge would consider relevant and material evidence to go to the jury in the present trial.
____________________
As a final wrap-up, beyond Regan, Brauer and the Deets, online items not linked to previously, are here and here, which are not favorable toward Hoff but also not relevant to the present trial questions.
Finally, the online bio of Judge Rilley.
It appears the parties got an able jurist to march things through the thickets of First Amendment law and we can expect her jury instructions and whatever special verdict form she allows to go to the jury will be unappealable, as sound and beyond reproach.