Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.[/quote]

Baldoni supporter here and I don’t agree.  The opinion makes clear Blake has to establish a “reasonable belief” of a hostile work environment based on a few of her allegations.   They can bring in all kinds of evidence to show there can be no such reasonable belief based on her own sexually charged conduct and credibility issues.[/quote]

Her lawyers may try this but Baldoni’s lawyers will argue it’s unduly prejudicial and Liman will likely agree and limit her to a summary of why she complained.  It’s also a double edged sword for Lively’s team b/c if they open the door Baldoni’s team gets to indict her account and motivations. [/quote]

I don't think you understand what "prejudice" means in court. You don't just get to keep out any evidence that makes your client look bad. You can keep out evidence that is highly inflammatory, might confuse the jury, or that is intended to show propensity ("this shows the defendant is the sort of person who would do what is alleged"). And the prejudicial impact of evidence is weighted against its relevance ("probative value"). But basic evidence showing, for instance, that Heath entered the makeup trailer after repeated requests not to and that he looked directly at Lively in an undressed state after agreeing to look away, will not be considered inflammatory or confusing. Heath himself admits to most of that already. Eyewitness testimony to the events that Lively believes constituted harassment would also be standard, not prejudicial.

Also, the rules about prejudice will also apply to the defense. They will be allowed to impeach Lively and her witnesses, but they will not be allowed to introduce inflammatory or confusing evidence that doesn't really go to the question of fact (whether Lively had a reasonable belief that she had been harassed). That means: no evidence about "stealing" the movie, no evidence about whether she delayed production or ran up costume costs. No evidence about the state of her friendship with Taylor Swift, about the Van Zan subpoena, etc. Most of Baldoni supporters fixate on will not be permitted to be mentioned in court and certainly won't be allowed as part of Wayfarer's defense.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics