This was not the case 12 Angry MenIt was five men and three women. And they weren’t mad at each other; they were mad at the NFL.
Following the $4.7 billion declaration of disapproval of the league’s antitrust violations, the NFL argued that one of the eight jurors was biased.
In a series of arguments attacking everything about the outcome, the NFL argued that the juror-turned-jury foreman “had an improper financial interest in the outcome of the litigation but was allowed to remain on and lead the jury.”
The alleged financial stake comes from the fact that the juror is paying for a family member’s Sunday Ticket subscription, but that family member is not part of the course. (The purchase occurred in 2023, after the plan switched from DirecTV to YouTube. The course covers the years 2011 to 2022.)
First of all, the fact that the juror became foreman of the jury is irrelevant. One of them had to be foreman of the jury. The question is whether the juror should have been on the jury, not whether the juror should have been on the jury but not the foreman of the jury.
Second, the argument is appealing, on its face. With a $4.7 billion verdict covering the last 12 years of the NFL-DirecTV relationship, it is obvious that the first year of the NFL-YouTube deal will be attacked under the same argument. The outcome of this case becomes the template for the next case that could benefit this juror.
Third, the NFL still has a problem. As the plaintiffs point out in their response, the NFL had a peremptory challenge that it could have used against the juror in question. It did not.
There are two ways to challenge a juror. The first is to show that the juror is biased and should be challenged for cause. The second is to use a peremptory challenge. (Both sides have a set number of challenges to exercise before each case.)
A lawyer who doesn’t use a peremptory challenge is like a coach who doesn’t use timeouts. They don’t get postponed. In that context, it’s hard to argue that a biased juror slipped through the cracks when the NFL could have remedied the situation with its remaining peremptory challenge.
It’s unclear why the NFL kept the final peremptory challenge in reserve. Regardless, the league had the power to get rid of the juror, but it didn’t.
This is one of the biggest problems with presenting every possible argument when faced with an important verdict. Some arguments are not legal errors, but lawyer errors.
