Subject:  Story about Amedure case (JJ trial) |
Author:
Chris
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/19/04 1:02pm
Plenty of hugs but no money
Web-posted Mar 21, 2004
By STEPHEN W. HUBER
Of The Daily Oakland Press
An Oakland County Circuit Court jury spoke and it was a shocker. The family of Scott Amedure - a man murdered three days after his appearance on "The Jenny Jones Show" by a fellow guest and the object of a same-sex crush - was awarded $25 million.
The family hugged, cried and wagged their fingers. Warner Bros., the media giant that distributed the show, had been held accountable for what the family contended was the blatant and public ambush of their loved one.
"Maybe we'll do something about these shows ... and there'll be no more killing," said Frank Amedure Sr., the dead man's father. "I lost my son."
But that was 1999.
Nearly five years later, things have changed.
The elder Amedure, who was being treated for cancer during the trial, died seven months after the jury verdict.
The hugs and jubilation the Amedures shared have been replaced by an indifference toward a legal system that gave them a chance and then - they believe - snatched it away. There is little talk about what once was.
The jury's award, which would now total $30 million, with interest, vanished. The family never got a dime.
"It's got to be politics," said Wayne Amedure, a brother of Scott Amedure. "It seems like (attorney Geoffrey Fieger) won everything in court, but it gets to the appeals and it's all Republican and Democrat s---."
Fieger, who represented the family, pointed his finger at a conservative cadre of judges appointed to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court by Gov. John Engler.
"That's the real injustice here. A gauntlet was set up in which the victims can never win," Fieger said. "If you're injured and you win, you'll lose on appeal..."
"Mr. Engler, in his 12 years in office, created a system with a population of judges who are outwardly biased against victims who win verdicts. They wanted to send the Amedures home with nothing."
Frank Amedure Jr. was more blunt.
"Our case is just collateral damage," he said.
The crime
Scott Amedure, 32, and Jonathan Schmitz, now 33, appeared on the show March 6, 1995, days after Amedure responded to a plug from the show soliciting guests for a show about same-sex secret crushes. Scott Amedure called the show and said he had a crush on Schmitz, who lived in the same Lake Orion apartment complex as Amedure's brother.
Before leaving for the show, Schmitz asked Scott Amedure if he was the secret admirer, but Amedure denied it.
Three days after the show - in apparent response to a sexually suggestive note, a blinking light and some caution tape Scott Amedure left at Schmitz's home - Schmitz bought a gun, went to Amedure's Orion Township mobile home and shot him twice in the chest.
Schmitz then called police and confessed, blaming the show for embarrassing him on national television. The show never aired.
Schmitz based his criminal defense on a mental disorder. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder. An error during the jury selection in the first trial brought a second trial with the same result.
Schmitz was sentenced to 25-50 years in prison. His earliest chance for parole is 2017.
Anything can happen
Fieger, with a national reputation for representing assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian and a thriving civil practice firmly established, filed a lawsuit with associate Ven Johnson on behalf of the Amedure family.
They sued "The Jenny Jones Show," Warner Bros. and Telepictures, contending the show had a duty to protect Scott Amedure from Schmitz and didn't.
Four years after the death and after several attempts by the defense to get the case thrown out by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the case went to trial before Oakland Circuit Judge Gene Schnelz. The case was mediated at $3 million but neither side found the amount satisfactory.
For six weeks in a crowded courtroom, Fieger and a pricey defense team that included Bloomfield Hills attorney James P. Feeney, former Circuit Judge William P. Hampton and Texas First Amendment attorney James George - with Warner Bros. Sr. Vice President and assistant general counsel Zazi Pope overseeing the team - fought a contentious and expensive battle.
The proceedings were broadcast live on Court TV.
Expert witnesses from across the country were called to testify, as was Jenny Jones herself. Fieger asked the jury for $71.5 million in damages. The defense argued there was no liability for their clients.
There was much argument over jury instruction, with the defense contending the show could not possibly be held responsible for such "unforeseen conduct" by Amedure.
Schnelz concluded there was such a duty.
Eventually, after deliberating for two days, the jury sided with Fieger and the Amedures, awarding $25 million to the family.
The award included $5 million for Scott Amedure's pain and suffering between the time he was shot and died - a few minutes.
"Truly today, justice rang free and clear," Amedure attorney Johnson said after the verdict. "That's what this case was all about. It was righting a wrong."
Feeney's take was prophetic:
"When we get to present this to the Court of Appeals, I'm very optimistic this verdict will never stand...," Feeney said at the time. "The message it sends is, if you give the jury an erroneous jury instruction, anything can happen."
The appeals
Not surprisingly, Warner Bros. immediately appealed, contending the show had no legal duty to protect Amedure after he revealed his gay crush.
Schnelz, who heard the appeal, turned it down and left the $25 million award intact.
A second appeal was filed.
"You almost want the verdict to be as outrageous as it can possibly be to show the need for appellate review," Feeney said. "... Warner Bros. felt very strongly that the show, the producers and Jenny Jones had done nothing wrong and were not responsible for this tragic event."
In a 2-1 decision issued Oct. 23, 2002, Appeals Judges Richard Allen Griffin and Patrick M. Meter described the show as the epitome of bad taste and sensationalism but concluded Schnelz should have thrown the case out. It was the biggest single verdict Fieger's firm has ever had overturned, he said.
The evidence, they wrote, failed to establish a jury question on whether it was reasonably foreseeable that Schmitz would murder Amedure as the natural and probable result of the events of the show.
Judge William B. Murphy, in his dissent, said the case was properly left before the jury and the show should bear the risk of such ambush shows.
Now, it was Fieger's turn to appeal.
On July 17, 2003, the Supreme Court, in a 5-2 ruling, refused without comment to take the case. Justices Marilyn Kelly and Michael F. Cavanagh would have granted leave to appeal.
Johnson suggested that the majority has begun to invade the province of the jury room simply because the award was huge.
"Nothing could be farther from the truth," Feeney said. "This was a radical, extreme theory of liability that was unprecedented in Michigan, and the Court of Appeals did exactly what a court of appeals should do.
"It didn't second-guess the jury but held there was no duty. This is what the Court of Appeals is supposed to do. There was no subterfuge. It was simply an application of the law to the facts and these judges disagreed with the trial court's view of that."
Fieger was not done. He asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its earlier ruling - a longshot at best.
And he took the appeal a step further. He tried to get Chief Justice Maura Corrigan and Justices Stephen J. Markman, Clifford W. Taylor and Robert P. Young Jr. - all appointed by Engler - disqualified from hearing the case for alleged bias.
Fieger contended in court documents that the three male judges had disparaged Fieger by name in their 2002 campaigns for re-election and that Corrigan's husband had filed a grievance against Fieger and she had asked that he be investigated for possible professional discipline.
"Their personal attacks on me - that's fine - but then they can't decide cases involving me or my firm," Fieger said. "They had a choice: Keep their mouths shut or recuse themselves from cases involving me, and they've done neither."
The Supreme Court, again in 5-2 decisions rendered Oct. 10, 2003 and Jan. 30, rejected the appeals and motions to reconsider earlier rulings.
The justices declined to comment on Fieger's assertions, letting their written orders speak for them, court spokeswoman Marcia McBrien said.
"As a taxpayer, I'm pretty ticked," said Tammy Reiss, who worked on the appeal with Fieger. "They had the opportunity to decide the issue or review the claim before the trial but both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court decided not to do that. But after six weeks of trial and a big verdict, then they change their tune."
Fieger then filed a claim in U.S. District Court in Detroit against the four justices and the state court administrator, asking that the justices be disqualified from hearing Fieger's cases, but Judge Marianne Battani dismissed it. The issue is now on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
Some suggest the voting booth - not a courtroom - provides the best avenue for change.
"The Michigan Supreme Court is viewed as a conservative court," University of Detroit Mercy Law School Professor Larry Dubin said. "Some lawyers may not like the results they're getting in court. That contention is not going to be the basis for disqualification, but it could be a basis to elect different justices."
Now what?
Fieger has until April to take the Amedures' case to the U.S. Supreme Court. He contends the alleged bias on the part of the Michigan Supreme Court would give him the constitutional grounds - lack of due process - to get to Washington.
But he is enough of a realist to know the chance the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case is remote.
"Does that mean the Amedures will get relief? No, because the Supreme Court takes one percent of the cases. But if one person becomes aware of the inequities in the (Michigan) courts, maybe we can make a difference."
Frank Amedure Jr., the brother of the victim, placed some of the blame on Fieger's in-your-face style.
"Everyone knows Fieger had burned a lot of bridges, politically," Frank Amedure said. "We had a great attorney and he won the case. And then it went to the Court of Appeals. It was clear the judge, who was a Democrat, sided with us and the two who were Republican were against us. It makes you sick to think that politics has a bearing on justice.
"The bottom line, it was politics and the enemies Fieger has created. He's real mouthy - it's just the way he is - and they wanted to hurt him ... We're feeling we got screwed in this."
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
