Elon Musk's Lawyer Accuses Jury of Mocking Him with $4.20 Damages Figure in Blue Ink
In a dramatic turn of events, Elon Musk's legal team has launched a scathing attack on a San Francisco federal jury, alleging that the panel mocked the billionaire by including the number $4.20 in a different ink color as part of its recommended damages in a class-action lawsuit. This accusation comes just weeks after the same jury concluded that Musk, the owner of Twitter and CEO of Tesla, misled investors with his tweets, which sent Twitter's stock price tumbling before his 2022 acquisition of the social media platform.
Allegations of Unfair Trial and Jury Bias
Alex Spiro, Musk's lawyer, has sent a formal letter to Judge Charles Breyer, claiming that the trial was fundamentally unfair. Spiro argues that the jury's emphasis on the $4.20 figure, written in bright blue ink while all other numbers were in black, was a deliberate attempt to mock Musk. He asserts that this number holds no significance to the damages determination but is instead a reference to a figure previously associated with Musk in popular culture, often linked to cannabis culture.
Spiro wrote in his letter: "The jury's emphasis on the $4.20 number, which had no significance to its damages determination, but appears to be a mocking reference to a number previously associated with Mr. Musk, shows that the verdict was a mockery of justice: a commentary not on whether Mr. Musk committed securities fraud (he did not) but on the jury's views about Mr. Musk himself."
Details of the Jury's Verdict and Damages Calculation
As part of its verdict, the jury provided handwritten estimates of how much artificial deflation per share Twitter stock suffered in the weeks following Musk's controversial tweets. The numbers were all reportedly written with black ink, except for the $4.20 figure for August 9, 2022, which stood out in blue. Spiro claims this was a "numerical joke" intended to send a message to his client, undermining the integrity of the judicial process.
In his letter, Spiro also highlighted broader concerns about the trial's fairness. He argued that it was nearly impossible to seat an impartial jury in San Francisco due to Musk's high profile and the widespread negative opinions about him in the community. Spiro pointed to juror questionnaires that revealed deep-seated hostility, with some prospective jurors admitting they could not be fair to Musk. Despite this, he claims, the court did not excuse enough biased individuals, leading to a compromised jury.
Background of the Securities Fraud Case
The lawsuit centered on allegations that Musk engaged in securities fraud by tweeting about the Twitter acquisition, which allegedly manipulated the stock price. The jury found Musk liable for stating that the deal was "temporarily on hold" or would not proceed until he received more information from Twitter, but it rejected more severe claims, such as a multi-month fraudulent scheme to depress the stock price intentionally.
Spiro's letter further alleges that Musk was deprived of his chosen counsel and key witnesses due to tactical maneuvers by the plaintiffs' lawyers. He claims that threats to call him as a witness forced him to step back from a jury-facing role, only for the plaintiffs to later reveal they had no intention of calling him, which Spiro describes as "gamesmanship" that prejudiced Musk's defense.
Implications and Next Steps
This development raises serious questions about the integrity of high-profile trials involving celebrities and billionaires. If Spiro's allegations are substantiated, it could lead to a mistrial or an appeal, potentially overturning the jury's decision. The case underscores the challenges of ensuring a fair trial in an era of intense media scrutiny and public opinion.
As the legal battle continues, all eyes are on Judge Breyer's response to Spiro's letter. The outcome could have significant implications for future securities fraud cases and the broader legal standards for jury impartiality in the digital age.
