Jury's Hands Tied by Court in Planned Parenthood Trial

Nov 19, 2019

Liberty Counsel will appeal the verdict in the multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit against Sandra Merritt for her undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of human baby body parts. From the beginning, the court severely restricted the evidence, and at the end gave instructions to the jury that instructed them how they should rule on critical issues. The jury decided in favor of the abortion giant on each count, including RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), and awarded more than $2 million in damages. 

The case was heard by San Francisco’s U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III, who is the founder of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center that houses the Planned Parenthood of Northern California facility in its complex. In 2017, the defense requested that Orrick recuse himself from the case and he refused. 

Merritt and colleague David Daleiden, the founder of Center for Medical Progress (CMP), produced videos in 2015 exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal trade in aborted baby body parts after a 30-month undercover operation. The videos showed top-level Planned Parenthood executives haggling over prices of aborted baby body parts and discussing how they change abortion procedures to obtain more intact organs. 

However, throughout the six-week trial, Judge Orrick specifically influenced the way the jury considered the issues and blocked them from watching the recorded conversations on the undercover videos. Orrick also told members of the jury they couldn't look at this as a First Amendment case, where freedom of speech and the press could be considered as a defense. However, Merritt and Daleiden acted according to the parameters of California recording law and no other citizen journalist or journalism organization has ever been charged with a crime for undercover recordings made in the public interest.

Before the jury retired to consider a verdict, Orrick gave them a 110-page jury instruction, which, in part, instructed the jury that: 

•           The case is not about Planned Parenthood’s illegal or unethical conduct. Orrick
             repeated this instruction just about every day throughout the trial and every
             time the defense managed to get any evidence admitted about PP’s conduct.

•           The First Amendment is not a defense in this case.

•           The court already determined that defendants are liable for trespass.

•           The court already determined that defendants breached certain contracts

•           Planned Parenthood had no duty to investigate whether defendants’ claims
             about who they were and what they were doing were true.

•           Whether a conversation is “sensitive” or “confidential” is not relevant to
             recording claims.

•           The jury cannot consider the content of videos themselves to determine whether
             defendants had reasonable belief that Planned Parenthood was committing
             crimes.

•           The court tells jury that security upgrades are among the types of damages that
             may be “directly caused by defendants’ acts.” The court does not tell jury that
             they cannot award any damages arising from the publication of the videos
             themselves (those are indisputably barred by First Amendment, but the jury
             was not so instructed). 

Read the Press Release and join the conversation on Facebook.



TAKE ACTION