With the January 6, 2025 trial date rapidly approaching, CNN has apparently resorted to trying to get the court to bar an expert witness from testifying against them in the $1 billion defamation suit they’re facing. Among their various complaints directed against Major General James V. Young (retired), CNN essentially argued that he was too good of a witness and provided too many important facts for the jury.
According to a filing from Plaintiff and Navy veteran Zachary Young (no relation to General Young) objecting to efforts to remove his expert witness, CNN was opposing General Young’s testimony because he was too good of a witness:
CNN contents that General Young’s testimony would confuse, mislead, or prejudice the jury, but fails to explain how or why. Perplexingly, CNN’s only basis for this argument appears to be that General Young, as a retired Major General, is too qualified, such that his professional history will be overly impressive to the jury.
“This is nonsense,” the filing adds. “General Young’s testimony is factually supported and highly relevant, as detailed herein. CNN points to no case where an expert was excluded simply because they might cut an impressive figure in the eyes of the jury.”
As NewsBusters previously reported, part of General Young’s testimony was meant to be in support of the economic damages Young argues he incurred as a result of CNN’s alleged defamation of his reputation in a field were, more than most, reputation is everything:
This type of work is based on one’s network and reputation and comparable positions are not available on job boards or employment web sites. These projects, by their very nature, rely on a close cadre of trusted individuals; breaches in that trust will have a profound impact on the ability to be included in comparable projects.
“The CNN story could have a negative impact on his ability to secure even this type of work, as the story is easily found on the internet,” General Young wrote.
That opinion from General Young also apparently drew CNN’s ire judging by the fact the filing addressed the criticism. “General Young necessarily reviewed the CNN story; he is not forbidden from using his eyes and ears to come to an understanding of what the story implies; and CNN is free to probe his interpretation of the story in cross-examination,” the filing said.
Part of what makes an expert witness’s testimony materially important is the expertise and experience they bring to the table. General Young seems to have the kind of knowledge that CNN may not want the jury to hear:
Testimony from General Young would be immensely valuable in helping a jury understand the nuanced and specialized nature of the evacuation operations conducted during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. His direct involvement in similar evacuations provides him with firsthand experience of logistical and operational challenges involved…with experience in intelligence and military operations, his insights would help the jury appreciate the stakes and complexity of these operations.
Key to CNN’s original offending report were their suggestions that Young was taking advantage and exploiting the situation in Afghanistan and the people he was helping to rescue; General Young could upend that.
According to the filing, “General Young’s analysis of the material conditions in Afghanistan is relevant to understanding the factors that informed Mr. Young’s prices, which are in turn relevant to whether CNN’s statements about “exploitative” and “exorbitant” prices are truthful.” Further noting:
Operations like Allied Airlift 21, which [General Young] participated in, incurred expenses reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars per flight, not including the costs of ground transport, safe houses, and secure communications…these operations demanded a significant budget due to the need for specialized personnel, secure transportation, and reliable networks with in Afghanistan. His knowledge would thus affirm that these expenses were justified…
In addition to trying to kick General Young off the case, CNN was also trying to get rid of Young’s other expert witness Richard Bolko, the certified public accountant whose testimony would be used to argue economic damages in the form of lost potential income.
“CNN can argue to the jury its reporting did not hurt Young. It is free to cross-examine Bolko on the reasonableness of his assumptions,” a separate filing argued. “But there is no doubt that (1) Bolko is qualified to offer expert testimony on damages and (2) that his methodology is regularly accepted by courts across the country.”
Apparently, any expert witness who would testify that CNN is in the wrong is unacceptable.
