before a jury of their peers and this particular case a jury is the only place my client felt she could receive justice since her cause of action was rooted in a conspiracy claim that involved police officers political officials and police agencies the very people who had a societal obligation to protect resul laci away were found to be working hand in glove with brad griffith to pry to deprive her of her constitutional right to the care custody and control of her minor child that was proven both at the custody trial as well as and this civil suit liability is not at issue this jury found that brad griffith and officer roloson gallo conspired to deprive laci way of her constitutional right to the care custody and control of her son and although the constitution affords her a right to a fair and impartial trial and this laci lay was deprived of that right this was based in large part on two critical errors made by the trial court and three additional errors by the jury the first error that was committed by the trial court was when the judge ruled that the settlement be disclosed to the jury the second error that deprived our client of a right to a fair trial was when he granted donald craven's directed verdict the jury never got to decide that issue and the jury made three errors based largely on confusion they were confused on the damages issues since the settlement had been revealed and they were also confused about the color of state law issue and vicarious liability based on miss williams the city attorney's misstating the law and her closing argument with regard to the settlement disclosure article four  is clear generally speaking settlements and compromises are not disclose for purposes of proven liability are in full out idiot claims with a few exceptions the exceptions a numerated in article four  eight b clearly don't apply to this case there was no evidence of witness bias or prejudice it was not used to negate a contention of undue delay and it was certainly not used to prove an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution and although the court made it minute settlement as evidence for other purposes such as in the case to avoid jury confusion like in the prior to one of the defendants settling he settled in the middle of trial i could see where that would add to the confusion but certainly greg griffin settled prior to him but why was the settlement agreement admitted according to the judge's comments on five different occasions it was because the judge said the jury had a right to know he said on five different occasions the jury has a right to know according to the record his primary reason that he allowed the settlement of griffith to be disclosed was because the judge thought it was quote the right thing to do it was rooted in fairness and what he considered right but my question to this court is it was fair to whom certainly not to the plaintiff because clearly the disclosure of the settlement prejudiced her  as evidence by the amount of damages that were awarded but even if this court were to find that a settlement should be disclosed pursuant to article four zero eight i suggested this court that under article four zero three they are still a duty to balance the prejudicial value of the probative value against the prejudicial effect and clearly the prejudice in disclosing the settlement to this jury outweighed that here when you see that they found bragge group that was at fault in committed a conspiracy to deprive resul ought to lay of care custody and control of her child and then found that officer well this gallo was involved in that nine thousand dollars this is not a dollar for pain and suffering so if we were to accept your argument would you want this jury verdict overturned the amount absolutely on i would i would i would all over again i don't fortunately i don't think that's all we're left with a no win state courts the appellate courts are allowed to review and render it but my impression of the law here is that is our only remedy is that we would we would have to retry the case and that the settlement would not be able to be disclosed very burdick is set aside correct your honor crew with regard to the directed verdict of senator mayor craven's at the time to senator when the action occurred mayor when the testimony came when you look at the testimony of bragg griffith senator craven's he said that he spoke to his office staff and told them he felt he was treated unfairly and it's not believable quite obviously that he would forget he called the senator and ask him to contact a detective regarding a custody suit but that's what he testified donal craven's testified that brad called him more than once and that even perhaps came to see him and said that he finally called officer mike gambari because he was quote tired in quote of being asked by griffin and because he had promised him he would call donna craven's testified the only thing he ever asked of detective mcconnell really was for him to be fair and look at the evidence but when he answered in his rocker tori's prior to the custody i mean part of the civil litigation he testified that it was his understanding that laci lay had used her friendships with individuals in law enforcement charge of the investigation of the ledge abuse and addressed mr griffiths concerns that miss lodge allays political and social connections would play a role in the outcome of this investigation now when he was asked at trial he denied knowing her name and then when he was asked why in his answers to any tories would he have said that he was aware she had quote political and social connections that would affect the outcome of the trial he said i never said that my attorney drafted that without consulting with me well again it's difficult to believe that his attorney given the detail of the saints or would have drafted he wouldn't deny it but he couldn't recall it jan huffman testified that the custody trial that it was senator craven's and his brother who advised her to get a restraining order against risa law chile but it trial she said that she never used his name despite the park testimony and when the trial court granted the directed verdict the judge stated the evidence did not support keeping donald craven's in the case and he also said that officer mike comrie was never in peached but he wasn't peached three times he gave three stories one when he testified at the custody case and two thousand and eight any changed his story depending on what mr felder would ask him or mr craven's which was donald craven's brother who was acting his attorney or the judge in two thousand and eight he clearly said that craven's called him and said quote there was an ongoing child custody thing whatever between brad and resa and could i help brad if i could now testified at the custody trial that sooner trade ins contacted him after he had closed his in criminal investigation because he had to open it again because pratt had influence even with the sheriff's department he reopened up the allegations of abuse and closed it testified as he was contacted by sen craven's after his criminal investigation was close and that he that center craven's was aware that he was going to be a witness in the upcoming custody trial and officer montgomery in two thousand and eight said he was angered by the call because he was a professional and things were black and white to him no matter who he was investigating but shortly before the trial officer comrie was contacted by donald craven's brother who was representing him and asked and execute an affidavit that clearly contradicted his prior testimony in the custody case and although he admitted to his testimony in a way and even testified that his memory would have been better then given the fact he had been involved in a head on collision and suffered memory loss on direct he admitted that donal craven's ask him to help brett out but he clarified by staying and he understood this to just be a figure of speech that he understood what craven said to be a figure of speech but on cross when mr craven's asked him about the term help brad out he said isn't it true that you used those words as a figure of and then when craven's crossed him but and on direct he admits that as a result of don's center craven's call him that he calls his supervisor as a result but when craven crosses him the first question that comes out is if you thought the phone call by senator craven's was improper isn't it true you would have contacted your supervisor but you didn't he says correct  improper you would have reported it to your supervisor in an internal affairs correct and he says correct i would have he said but you did the judge like what minds him you did contact the supervisor and then he explain i only did that so if i was being tate by senator craven's it would appear that there was influence or corruption now i would say to this court how could there ever be an influence or corruption allegation if all the phone calls said from craven's to make comrie was be fair look at the evidence why would he have been concerned about that being taped that it's not consistent  in two thousand and eight and now what's interesting to me is that the judges questions of officer make comrie focused on what quote if i could in quote meant and the reason that's important is because despite officer make comrie and mr craven suggestion that when he said he was asked to help brad owl it was a figure of speech clearly the trial court didn't think it was a figure of speech because he says the most critical question i have for you is what does quote if you could mean now there was no response to that question testified that the politicians put pressure on him as well as his own office it's just not believable with regard to fi carious law billet in color of state law the law was misquoted he was in uniform issue appeared to criminal court i would say is much is the word fair was used by this court by the trial court bar craven's bhaumik damrey my client has a right to a fair trial or you save time for both of you thank you thank sugarcoating and to be plain and direct the plaintiff accuses donald craven senior of calling officer alex and gomery and asking officer madame re deputy madame re to commit perjury in a custody trial when donal craven's first found out about this allegation which was several years after the after the phone call he was s went on for for several years until officer montgomery was asked in preparation for trial to clarify his statements made at the custody trial trial they were talking about a custody dispute that started in two thousand and five around the time of hurricane rita bout being treated unfairly there was a very brief conversation and deputy and gunnery took no action regarding the case as a result of craven's request there is no evidence at all in the record that craven's was asked by brad griffith to do anything improper montgomery was very clear in his memory not of his testimony but he was clear in his memory of his interaction with krav both craven's and gum read only two people who had knowledge of the conversation between craven's and gummer both testified that there was nothing improper that was request gummer e said that craven's it use the word words help him out i think he did say that if he could but montgomery didn't get the impression that craven's was asking him to do anything wrong of them to the meaning in interpretation of what was said because there was no contradiction there was no contradiction as to what the purpose of the call was from anyone  lot of what's presented here for instance the discussion about jan huffman and council said her brother actually it was craven's brother actually was craven son who spoke to jan testified and huffman clearly said that she didn't even tell craven's what lex relays name was she said there was a woman who was harassing her and asked craven's and his son who is an attorney what she should do and he said would you should get a restraining order and that's used here to imply that there was some  nefarious purpose for that and it was simply and some advice to a constituent without knowing exactly who all the parties were that many things here are are misconstrued misrepresent and after a three day trial the plaintiff want to have forty one witnesses on their list it called nineteen witnesses none of those witnesses came forward said donald craven said done anything wrong and the overwhelming weight of the evidence showed that there was there was really nothing there there was no there there you know as the judge said there's no way on god's green earth that a jury could reasonably determined that don cravens did something wrong there was no no request to perform an illegal act they never talked about a custody trial went when the when the plaintiffs says that  e knew that are said that he thought the cravens knew that there was a trial montgomery was talking about his subjective  interpretation which he actually no longer believed to be true in retrospect he said that's probably not true he had no reason to know whether craven's was in the knew anything about a true that's nowhere in the record montgomery went over each of his allegations with the attorney for the plaintiff and he reaffirmed each of those of assertions from his affidavit he underwent questioning from the judge and the judge was trying to get at the truth and that it was clear that montgomery said he didn't want me to do anything wrong he simply ask to be fair so after years of litigation after that affidavit was obtained a motion to dismiss was filed that motion was denied judge heike wanted this to go to trial so everyone would have their day in court at the end of three days after all the testimony was hurt it was clear that don cravens was not involved in a conspiracy that craven's did not ask anyone to do anything wrong and because of of if the jury had found due to argument because they were urged to consider  the questions asked by the attorney says evidence and if they had found the cravens had indeed engaged in a conspiracy it would have been a travesty and the judge properly took that away from the jury now there was some explaining that explaining exactly what that meant and that he was angry because griffin was calling everybody and telling everybody he was being treated unfairly and there was even testimony from some other deputies who said the same thing where if it was called  everybody and saying that he was being treated unfairly but when you have a state senator who's called by a constituent and says i'm being treated unfairly it is not an illegal act for that senator to call and say treat unfairly and that's all the evidence we have here as judge height pointed out the only all we have other than that is innuendo speculation inference and we understand that conspiracies can be proven by circumstantial please the court my name is deseret williams olding here on behalf of the city of appaloosas this morning with regard to plaintiffs vicarious liability allegations i like to first reiterate and we emphasize to the court that the state law claim is the only claim that the jury considered with regard to the city of appaloosas as all the players federal claims had been disposed of and dismissed prior to trial that said the plaintiff relies on several factors to cast liability on the city including the fact that gallo was in uniform when he cited the plaintiff for battery what the play of glosses over however is the fact that miss lashley readily admitted to committing a battery in front of officer gallo apples and general hospital so the vicarious liability theory and that context fails further any actions by gallo which the jury deemed to be part of a conspiracy against the pla constituted personal pursuits on behalf of gallo which were outside of the scope of his duties as annapolis police officer in dover says louisiana support association the louisiana fifth circuit hill that such purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer's interests do not give rise to but here is liability similarly in the city of green hope springs versus dallas and this  court that although the scope of inform is considerably broader than explicitly authorize acts of the employee it does not extend to cases in which the employee has stepped aside from his employment to commit a tort which the employer either directed in fact nor could be supposed from the nature of his employment to have authorized our state that the service the employee to do prior to turning the case over to the jury they heard the law but here is liability what counsel for the city did was state her theory of the case with out it was there any objection register there was objection your honor no objection whatsoever and that theory was also in the excepted by the jury the jury was not confusing this case at all the jury was able to separate officer gallo's host status or  him saying all senator craven's did is ass off from a guy married to be fair be fair about what the criminal investigation was closed this does not make sense there is no doubt that when detective mick comrie was asked in two thousand eight his testimony was craven's contacted me it vies to me of the custody issues between brad in recess and asked if i could help him out if i could that's what he said and when asked how did you respond his response was it made me angry because i am a professional things are black and white i don't care who i'm investigating that's what was said now he tried to retract and kind of cross fishback from that when he was under cross but he admitted at the end what i said in two thousand and eight was more accurate as my memory of them was better in fact your honor i had a head on collision and i can't remember a lot so i would say that if he can't remember a lot then the specifics for the officer police officer he was insulted that someone might consider when he was not mean or certainly that could be one thing that could have made him angry but that's not what he said that's not what he said in two thousand and eight when they said that the affidavit he prepared didn't contradict itself it absolutely did he signed an affidavit saying he and senator craven's never discussed a criminal or civil suit regarding brad arisa clearly that's not true officer mike comrie testified previously he was contacted specifically in regard to the custody suit and that the criminal investigation was over and he also said that juvenile matters are private and generally not open to the public and so for senator craven's even know about it he would have to have known about the criminal suit and the custody suit to even make the contact dollars to his campaign but he what his constituents he worked on the mayor's gala with them but he what his constituent i think the most important part when you look at the testimony of bragg griffen senator craven's jan huffman and officer comrie is they don't add up their stories continue to evolve and change and for a phone call that will according to senator craig was very short and very brief we've had many explanations as to what that meant or said or what he understood to  say and miss williams said that that the judge gave them the law with regard to vicarious liability when the judge read twenty pages of jury instructions that took about thirty minutes midway through half the jury fell asleep and within their yes there was a discussion of vicarious liability but i would suggest at this court that it probably at that point sounded much like charlie brown's teachers to them the word fair as used by the judge in w revealed the settlement to the jury craven's testified he's asked me to beef only how did how did the settlement prejudice the murder because when they made their determination when it came to fault the first clearly if you evaluate the damages of a woman who's been falsely arrested accused of six criminal offenses and six weeks had custody taken for two and a half years and had to litigate this case to the appellate court the supreme court back to the  her cost exceeded seventy thousand dollars that's not pain and suffering evidence of the settlement affected the amount of of the were absolutely your honour's and i think there's no other way to look at the damage award it is clear from the ten thousand six hundred forty seven dollars damage award that they only added up the criminal attorney that she had to use in response to the set up that officer gallo did at the loses that's all they gave her for is the criminal attorneys are related to that one set up well the conspiracy is the whole thing it's everything and the judge continued to say thank you misspelled your