Michael Mann Sanctioned for False Testimony, Bad Faith

My wife and I attended several days of trial, near the end of the Michael Mann v. Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg trial in Washington, D.C. We witnessed a dramatic moment, when Mann’s lawyers had introduced into evidence a document, which was blown up for the jury and about which Mann testified, that contained a list of grants that Mann allegedly didn’t get as a result of the defendants’ purported defamation. The value of one of those grants, per the exhibit, was $9 million.

On cross-examination by Simberg’s lawyer, Victoria Weatherford*, it turned out that the exhibit reflected sworn interrogatory answers that had been served by Mann, but later superseded by revised answers, also given under oath. The $9 million had been reduced to $112,000. To say that Weatherford’s cross-examination was effective is an understatement. And Mann didn’t get away with the misrepresentation, as the jury found only nominal damages of $1.

But still, the false evidence had been presented, and defendants moved for sanctions to be imposed on Mann and his lawyers. Earlier today, more than a year after the events, Judge Alfred Irving entered a long order ruling on the defendants’ sanction motion. It is embedded below. The facts are rather complicated, but the judge’s conclusions are unequivocal:

Defendants contend that Dr. Mann engaged in prejudicial, sanctionable conduct through the knowing introduction to the jury of misleading and false testimony and exhibits in support of his claim for damages resulting from an alleged loss of grant funding as a consequence of Defendants’ statements.
***
Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through Mr.
Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding. Specifically, the Court finds that Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams knowingly violated the rules of professional conduct in eliciting testimony and offering evidence related to (1) the post-publication unfunded grant amounts depicted in Exhibit 517A, and as reproduced in Exhibit 117, and (2) the post-publication funded grant amounts in Exhibit 116.

The Court does not reach this decision lightly.
***
Given such circumstances, the Court can only find that Mr. Williams and Mr. Fontaine
knew about the errors in Exhibit 517A prior to Mr. Fontaine’s use of Exhibit 517A in his redirect examination. The Court further finds that Mr. Williams and Mr. Fontaine could not have reasonably believed otherwise, as a “reasonably diligent inquiry” would have revealed that Exhibit 517A was erroneous and outdated, especially where Mr. Williams and Mr. Fontaine have been personally involved in this case since at least 2012, when the case was filed, (1) as longtime counsel for Dr. Mann in this litigation, (2) as the attorneys who assisted Dr. Mann in preparing his original, supplemental, and amended discovery responses, and (3) as Dr. Mann’s lead counsel who prepared for trial and engaged in the necessary tasks related to reviewing Dr. Mann’s likely testimony and the Parties’ related exhibits on such a central issue in the case. … They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.

Thus:

The Court determines that the appropriate sanction is to award each Defendant the approximate expenses they incurred in responding to Dr. Mann’s bad faith trial misconduct, starting with Mr. Fontaine’s redirect examination.

The Court arrives at such a sanction because the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent; (2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr. Mann’s case, but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury’s impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary; (3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and (4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time- and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgement of the nature of the misconduct by Dr. Mann or his attorneys.

For the lawyers, the Court’s finding that they acted in bad faith and knowingly presented false evidence to the jury is crushing. As to Michael Mann, he has damaged his own reputation through dishonesty and misrepresentations under oath, to a much greater degree than it ever could have been damaged by Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn.

* Weatherford did a damn good job. If I were still a senior partner in a big law firm, I would try to hire her.

[scribd id=838506264 key=key-OlPuX3ghARvCNI8jHhnG mode=scroll]