Alex Jones wants CT judge to block Sandy Hook families from mentioning white supremacy at trial

Authored by newstimes.com and submitted by KatzDeli

NEWTOWN — Attorneys getting ready for a jury trial to decide how much Alex Jones will pay Sandy Hook families he defamed want a judge to bar evidence about “white supremacy and right-wing extremism,” saying such associations would violate his right to a fair trial.

“[E]vidence on the topics of white supremacy and right-wing extremism…is not relevant to the issues that will be before the jury and would also be unfairly prejudicial and inflammatory to (Jones),” reads an argument by Norm Pattis, Jones’ high-profile New Haven attorney. “[E]vidence relating to those topics is irrelevant, would be an attack on (Jones’) character and play to the emotions of the jury and distract from the main issues.”

Lawyers for an FBI agent and eight Sandy Hook families who won a defamation case against Jones here last year were yet to respond in court to Jones’ request by Wednesday. The two sides are due before state Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis on Thursday for a pretrial conference where the main issue is likely to be the showdown between Bellis and a district court judge in Texas, who has scheduled two defamation awards trials for Jones that compete with Bellis’ schedule here for jury selection in August and a trial in September.

The short version of the showdown is that in addition to the defamation lawsuit Jones lost to families here last year, Jones lost two other defamation lawsuits to Sandy Hook parents in Texas and a fourth defamation lawsuit to a Norwalk native Jones’ Infowars site defamed as a mass shooter. There was no conflict in the trial dates to award damages until Jones filed for federal bankruptcy protection one week before the first Texas trial was to begin. Jones’ bankruptcy maneuver didn’t work, except to cause the judge in Texas to reschedule the three trials in Travis County — two of which are now in conflict with the Connecticut trial.

Pattis in a separate motion this week asked Bellis to reconsider her refusal to reschedule the Connecticut trial, arguing, “this court’s refusal to continue the trial to a time when (Jones) is not concurrently on trial in another state amounts to a due process violation.”

“He is a victim of the vagaries of federalism and requests simply that the Connecticut case be adjourned until completion of the first Texas case,” Pattis wrote.

Pattis said his effort to bar evidence relating to “associations of racism or extremism” was out of concern about two potential witnesses the families may call at trial.

Pattis’ motion is part of a larger legal effort to ensure that Jones’ notoriety as a leader in the conspiracy community, and the national sympathy for the Sandy Hook families does not work against him in trial.

In a separate motion also filed this week, Pattis asked Bellis for permission to introduce her decision that defaulted Jones and made him liable for defamation damages.

“(Jones was) found liable by way of a disciplinary default because the court concluded (he) failed to comply with discovery obligations,” Pattis argued. “(We) seek to introduce the court’s ruling…to ensure that jurors know that the liability finding was disciplinary in nature, and not a result of any finding as to the underlying merits of the claims against Mr. Jones.”

The Sandy Hook families’ attorneys were yet to respond to Pattis’ motion Wednesday.

Jones called the 2012 massacre of 26 first-graders and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School “staged,” “synthetic,” “manufactured,” “a giant hoax,” and “completely fake with actors.”

Pattis argued that “sanctimonious outrage jeopardizes (Jones’) rights to a fair trial before the proceedings ever get underway.”

“[W]hile (Jones) may not challenge the threshold proposition that (he) caused damages to the (families), the issue of causation is inextricably intertwined with determining the amount of the damages that the (families) may recover,” Pattis argued.

“The public has not viewed this case as the law views it. To the public, this case is not about liability and damages. It is about whether Mr. Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC have been found guilty under the rubric of moral outrage,” Pattis writes. “In Connecticut where the horrors of the Sandy Hook tragedy have struck so close to home, the rubric delivers a near-universal outcome: Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC are guilty and must be punished as much as possible — the law be damned.”

The fact that Pattis is defending Jones again is also news.

Earlier this summer, Pattis asked be dropped from representing Jones because Pattis’ firm had not spoken with Jones in a month, following Jones’ unsuccessful bankruptcy maneuver.

Bellis said “no,” ruling that Pattis and other Jones attorneys have either replaced themselves or asked to be dropped 13 times in four years.

Pattis later withdrew his request to drop Jones.

Political_Lemming on July 14th, 2022 at 02:42 UTC »

"Pattis argued that “sanctimonious outrage jeopardizes (Jones’) rights to a fair trial before the proceedings ever get underway.”

Has not Alex Jones entire career been built on a foundation of sanctimonious outrage?!?

picado on July 14th, 2022 at 02:22 UTC »

"Because it's devastating to my case!"

Burlesque_Djin on July 14th, 2022 at 02:18 UTC »

"To defend what I call free speech, I need these other people to not be allowed to say this."