Share and Follow
Inset: Zachary Young in court on the third day of his defamation case against CNN (Law&Crime). Background: Judge William Henry loses patience with attorneys (Law&Crime).
Drama erupted in a Florida courtroom on Thursday afternoon during the civil trial between CNN and the U.S. Navy veteran who claims the cable news network defamed him.
Plaintiff Zachary Young, a security contractor who extracted people from Afghanistan, claims a November 2021 segment on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” falsely painted him as an “illegal profiteer” exploiting “desperate Afghans” with “exorbitant” fees amid the fallout of President Joe Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from the country.
Young maintains that CNN’s broadcast effectively tarred him as a scofflaw and ruined his business, making it nearly impossible for him to work because of the severe damage to his reputation that ensued.
“I became an outcast, and that’s what I felt like,” Young told jurors during direct testimony on Wednesday. “And to a large degree, I still do.”
On Thursday, CNN claimed to have uncovered evidence that directly took to task the plaintiff’s claimed economic harm.
“Since the CNN broadcast, you’ve had no work, is that right?” the network’s attorney asked.
“Correct,” the plaintiff replied.
“And would it be your contention that since the CNN broadcast, no one will deal with you?” the attorney went on.
“Yes,” Young said again.
The questioning and answering went on like this, in sum and substance, for a few more volleys between the two.
Then, CNN’s attorney asked: “Sir, is it true that in December of 2021, you signed a consulting agreement with a government contractor called Helios Global?”
Young again answered in the affirmative.
As the defense attorney moved to have the plaintiff read from a document, the plaintiff’s counsel moved to object and then requested a sidebar away from the jurors’ ears.
“I don’t think there’s a reason for an objection, I’ll ask the question,” CNN’s attorney said, trying to barrel through.
Young’s attorney countered: “This document is not on the exhibit list.”
“It’s for impeachment,” CNN’s lawyer fired back.
“What do you mean, for impeachment?” Young’s attorney replied, laughing. “There’s nothing to impeach.”
Several minutes passed. The jurors were eventually dismissed so the sides could hash the issue out further on the record.
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge William Henry then offered up the heart of the instant dispute: “To frame the issue that we have at the moment, we have a just-discovered document the defense wants to use as an exhibit.”
The judge went on to say there were “some accusations or aspersions made” as to why the document had not come up during discovery and noted the plaintiff’s objections to using the document “last minute.”
“We’ve never seen this document before,” Young’s attorney said. “Helios Global came up in the middle of discovery — I didn’t think it did, but Mr. [David] Axelrod was kind enough to correct me. There were questions about Helios Global and one of the signatories.”
Young’s attorney went on to cast the document and broader issue as a string their side believes was left un-pulled since CNN declined to subpoena one of the people also listed on the document. The plaintiff essentially argued the document was likely signed by Young and returned to Helios Global — without a copy being made by Young. This, they said, means Young did not have it in his “care, custody, or control” and that it was not covered by a discovery order.
“We did not have this document, or it would have been produced,” Young’s attorney Vel Freedman said. “I’ve never seen it, so I can’t talk to him about it, or what it is, or why it exists.”
When it was CNN’s turn to argue for including the document, the network’s attorney attacked the foundation of Young’s case.
“Plaintiff’s entire case, sitting right there, is that after the publications, he couldn’t get any work,” Axelrod began — doubly animated — pointing at the plaintiff and raising a copy of the lawsuit into the air.
As Axelrod continued, his voice occasionally rising, the courtroom camera panned. Young often shook his head in disagreement.
The CNN attorney went on in voluble fashion:
Mr. Young knew, when he filed this lawsuit that he had entered into a new consulting agreement with a government contractor one month after CNN’s publication. This entire lawsuit was a fraud on this court. It was a fraud on CNN. This man knew it. I don’t know what they know. But when his came up in discovery, CNN’s counsel asked Mr. Young about the Helios connection, and he completely lied in his deposition. Over and over again, he made up some incredible ruse that Helios just had his security clearance because it was a company that held security clearances. It makes no sense. He knew at that time that he had a consulting agreement with Helios Global and he didn’t disclose it. It was an outright lie. This document should have been produced.
“Mr. Young perpetrated a fraud on this court and lied in his lawsuit where he claimed his reputation and his business was destroyed by CNN,” Axelrod went on. “He knew, fundamentally, that was a false allegation.”
The network’s attorney said the defense only received the document from Helios directly the day before and ridiculed the notion that CNN might not be able to use the document in front of jurors.
Freedman, back at the dais, accused Axelrod of hiding the document from the plaintiff’s side and waging “trial-by-ambush,” said Young testified truthfully about his agreement with Helios during his deposition and pleaded with the court to bar the document from coming in.
Recriminations followed for several minutes during the hearing, leading to the dredging up of past discovery disputes.
Finally, the judge literally waved the attorneys off.
“We’re not gonna throw mud back and forth again and again and again over the same stuff that’s been going on,” Henry said. “Y’all both are guilty of it. I’m not going to rule one way or another just based on who can make each other out to be the worst person in this case.”
After a recess, the judge allowed CNN to use the document for substantive purposes during the trial.
“There’s no prejudice to sticking it in front of him for purposes of this trial,” the judge said. “So, I’ll allow the use of the document.”
Freedman again complained about the “surprise document” and received permission to briefly confer with his client before questioning in front of the jury resumed.
Later, the judge warned both sides they would be fined $100 for each instance if they continued to level personal insults.
