On Dec. 14, Rudy Giuliani’s attorney said the requested damages were ‘catastrophic’ and part of a ‘Hollywood-type damage model.’
WASHINTON—A jury said on Dec. 15 that former Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani should pay two former Georgia election workers $148 million for defaming them during the 2020 presidential election.
The verdict came roughly four days after the jury entered deliberations and represents a hefty punch to Mr. Giuliani, who is reportedly already facing financial troubles. Plaintiffs had asked for at least $48 million in reputational damages while not specifying an amount for punitive damages and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Jurors ultimately awarded former election worker Ruby Freeman $16,171,000 for compensatory damages related to defamation and $20 million for emotional distress. The punitive damages, which are intended to send a message in especially bad cases, reached $75 million for both. Ms. Freeman’s daughter, Shay Moss, was awarded $16,998,000 in compensatory damages for defamation and $20 million for emotional distress.
The judge seemed toexpress shock at the full amount, noting it didn’t include the more than $200,000 Mr. Giuliani was ordered to pay in the case.
Mr. Giuliani’s trial lasted for four days and focused on the amount he should pay rather than establishing whether his statements in December 2020 were defamatory. U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell told the jurors that for the verdict, they were to assume that Mr. Giuliani defamed the former election workers and had no legal right to do so.
The election workers had been identified in a video clip that became widely circulated after the 2020 general election. In it, they are seen allegedly mishandling ballots. An investigation by the Georgia Elections Board later cleared Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss of wrongdoing, but the two women said the damage had been done.
Judge Howell issued a default judgment against Mr. Giuliani in August after he failed to produce documents and other information requested by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Mr. Giuliani also opted not to contest allegations that he made false and defamatory statements about the election workers.
Joseph Sibley, Mr. Giuliani’s attorney, said during his opening statement on Dec. 11 that the amount the plaintiffs sought would spell “the end” for his client and that it would be “the civil equivalent of a death penalty.”
On Dec. 14, he said the requested damages were “catastrophic” and part of a “Hollywood-type damage model.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Gottlieb took issue with that wording, saying in his closing statement that the defense wrongly suggested the plaintiffs’ reputation wasn’t as important because they weren’t as high-profile as celebrities and others. Mr. Gottlieb contended that Mr. Giuliani was “patient zero” for the spread of harmful content about the plaintiffs.
He argued that Ms. Freeman’s name became “infamous” after Mr. Giuliani’s Dec. 3, 2020, statements about the two. Describing Mr. Giuliani’s and the Trump campaign’s actions, Mr. Gottlieb said that they used rocket fuel and kerosene to burn down a house and ruin its foundations. Even if repairs were made, Mr. Gottlieb said, the house—like the plaintiffs’ lives—would be dangerous to live in.
Mr. Sibley started his closing statement by explaining that he decided not to have Mr. Giuliani testify because the plaintiffs had been through “enough.” After acknowledging that the plaintiffs had been wronged, Mr. Sibley criticized the witnesses’ conduct and suggested that the plaintiffs’ counsel was engaging in “puppeteering” during testimony.
“Rudy Giuliani is a good man,” Mr. Sibley said, noting that “he hasn’t exactly helped himself” in “the preceding days” and that he “shouldn’t be defined by” recent events.
“That’s not who he is,” Mr. Sibley said, referring to the idea that Mr. Giuliani was racist. He also reminded the jury of Mr. Giuliani’s role as mayor of New York City. “I’m asking you to remember that this is a man” who did “great things,” Mr. Sibley said.
He urged the jury to send a message that would allow Americans to come together during a divisive time in the country.
After the verdict, Mr. Giuliani told reporters outside the courthouse that the awarded amount was “absurd” and expected the outcome to be reversed. He also claimed he wasn’t able to present the evidence he would have liked to present at trial.
“I am quite confident when this case gets before a fair tribunal, it will be reversed so quickly it will make your head spin,” he said. “The absurd number that just came in will help that, actually.”
When asked why he didn’t testify, Mr. Giuliani suggested the judge would have unfairly punished him. “I didn’t testify because the judge made it clear that if I made any mistake or did anything wrong, she was considering contempt—and this judge does have a reputation for putting people in jail,” he said. “And I thought honestly, it wouldn’t do any good.”
