RSS

Is the Special Verdict Form to blame for the Johnny Northside verdict?

Mon, Mar 21, 2011

Archive

[Print] [Email] [RSS Feed] [Facebook] [Twitter]

By Brett Clark

Attorney Benjamin Skjold and law student Carl Engstrom may have put their finger on the cause of the bizarre verdict in the Johnny Northside case that came down about a week ago.  For those not familiar with the case, the Defendant John Hoff (who blogs under the pseudonym Johnny Northside) wrote a post regarding the University of Minnesota’s decision to hire Plaintiff Jerry Moore and Moore’s apparent involvement in a fraudulent mortgage.  The post resulted in Moore being fired by the university.  Moore sued Hoff for defamation, intentional interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage in Hennepin County.

What has surprised the legal community in Minnesota is that Moore won.  The judge tossed all but one of the allegedly defamatory statements and the jury determined that since Hoff’s statement was not false, no defamation had occurred.  Nonetheless, the jury found Hoff liable on both interference counts.  This is a head scratcher, whereas one of the elements of intentional interference with contract/prospective business advantage is that the interference is without justification.  If the jury believed the statement at issue to be true, then it is difficult to conceive how stating an objectively true fact could be improper interference with the contractual relationship of another.

Skjold and Engstrom may have found the reason for the jury’s confusion. The special verdict form (which is posted in the Skjold Engstrom blog post) contains no mention of the justification element.  It merely asks if Hoff intentionally interfered with Moore’s employment contract and if Hoff interfered with Moore’s prospective employment advantage-one single question for each count.

We don’t know what was contained in the jury instructions or whether Hoff’s counsel objected to the wording of the special verdict form.  The verdict goes to show, however, just how important the verdict form can be in a trial.  Often times, you’re asking a lot to expect a jury to pour over their jury instructions the way we as attorneys might in the same situation.  What matters most is how the question is framed.  From the perspective of a defendant’s counsel, it is best to ensure that there are as many questions for each count as possible.  That way, you ensure that the jury fully considers whether the Plaintiff has met his or her burden of proof on each element without glossing over important details.  The more questions that require an affirmative answer there are on the verdict form, the more likely it is that a “no” will appear in answer to one of the questions.  By no means should there have been one single question for each interference count on the verdict form in this case.  For example, with respect to intentional interference with contract, one might include the following questions (or some variation of them):

  1. Did a contract exist between Moore and the University of Minnesota?
  2. If your answer to Question 1 is yes, then answer this question.  Did Hoff induce or otherwise cause the University of Minnesota not to perform this contract?
  3. If your answers to Questions 1 and 2 are yes, then answer this question.  Did Hoff intend to induce or otherwise cause the University of Minnesota not to perform this contract?
  4. If your answers to Questions 1 through 3 are yes, then answer this question.  Was Hoff’s inducement or causation of the University of Minnesota not to perform this contract improper?
  5. If your answers to Questions 1 through 4 are yes, then answer this question.  Did Hoff’s inducement or causation of the University of Minnesota not to perform this contract cause Moore damages?

As Skjold and Engstrom correctly note, as a matter of law, giving a person truthful information is not “improper interference.”  Hopefully this statement of law appeared in the jury instructions, but even if it did, one could always formulate a question on the truthfulness of the information in the context of an improper interference count.

It is difficult to break down an entire trial in a newspaper article, so it is entirely possible that Moore presented evidence at trial that would support the jury’s verdict.  It seems more likely, however, that the jury did not properly understand what was being asked of it.

[Print] [Email] [RSS Feed] [Facebook] [Twitter]
,

This post was written by:

- who has written 12 posts on JDs Rising.

I am an attorney at the Lommen Abdo law firm in Minneapolis. At Lommen, I practice civil litigation, primarily in professional liablity defense and commercial litigation. Most of my clients are lawyers, accountants, and a variety of other professionals. I received my JD from the University of St. Thomas School of Law in 2006 and a BA in political science from Carroll College in Helena, Montana. Contact Brett by e-mail at brett[at]lommen.com.

Contact the author

17 Comments For This Post

  1. Jason I. Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Looks like you’ve outlined Hoff’s appellate brief for him!

  2. Liz Hersey Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Please note that Mr. Engstrom is a second year law student at the U of MN, as stated on the blog post, and not an attorney.

  3. Patrick Thornton Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Change made. Thanks Liz

  4. Jim Watkins Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    I am not sure if any of my comments would be a factor in any of this discussion but, according to Terry Yzaguirre of the MplsMirror.com, (she was the only journalist who was present for the entire trial) that when Hoff was on the witness stand, he confirmed that he took “partial credit” for Moore’s firing in a follow up comment on his blog after Moore was fired.
    I am not an attorney nor have I been a juror in a trial but, I would find it difficult to overlook a statement like that, especially when it was the Defendant himself that said it.

  5. MeganG. Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Jim Watkins, it doesn’t matter if Hoff took partial credit in a subsequent blog post. What he was taking partial credit for is bringing forward the truthful information about Jerry Moore’s past involvements in fraudulent mortgage deals. So taking credit for bringing facts to the attention of the U of M, a government funded institution, about an employee who was hired to research foreclosures is not interference with a contract! Didn’t you see the last paragraph where the guy says giving truthful information is not improper interference?

    (Disclosure: Jim Watkins is best friend of convicted mortgage fraudsters TJ Waconia and he hates John Hoff and other northside activists who fight for decency in our neighborhood. Jim now lives in TX but he cyberstalks John Hoff)

  6. Jeff Skrenes Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Jerry Moore was fired (I use that term colloquially; it’s more accurate to say that he was a temporary employee and his contract/temp job was ended) the day after the JNS post in question. Whether John Hoff took credit for Moore’s termination or not, I find it highly unlikely that an institution as large as the U of M would decide to terminate any contract within one day of one blog post.

    Calling a University employee as a witness is not something that could be done on appeal (I think) since no new evidence is allowed. If there’s a new trial, one would expect that question to come up.

  7. John Hoff Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    1. Jim Watkins–a small time, self-annointed Texas real estate guru who is the self-described “best friend” of TJ Waconia fraudster Thomas Balko, has haunted my blog as the “Evil Anti-Johnny” for a couple years because of my coverage of THAT high profile North Minneapolis fraud, including my publishing the only post-conviction pictures of the two fraudsters.

    He leaves much out of his comments. Including his stake in the fight.

    Here’s an example of two articles which are reasons why Jim hates my blog so much.

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/04/jns-blog-exclusive-images-of-teary.html

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/12/jns-blog-exclusive-while-tj-waconia.html

    Jim? Say hi to your friend in prison the next time you chat with him. I’m still trying to get my hands on his mug shot to publish.

    You…motivate…me.

    2. Terry Y. is a blogger who writes polemics contrary to my blog. Whatever I write, she writes the opposite and attacks what my blog says, sticking up for those precious interests that my blog supposedly victimizes: mortgage fraudsters, accused criminals, Level Three sex offenders, slumlords, and local businesses who don’t take care of the outward appearance of their buildings.

    Here. Examples of each, in order. Enjoy.

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/07/marlon-pratt-mortgage-fraud-case-bloggy.html

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2010/07/eric-hyde-38-of-brooklyn-center-mn.html

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2011/03/hot-new-makeover-for-peter-spanky-pete.html

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2011/03/post-in-progress-slumlord-keith-reitman.html

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2010/02/west-broadway-continues-to-be-blighted.html

    3. The so-called follow up comment was, in fact, a blog post reporting on news of Moore’s firing. It was introduced as a Plaintiff exhibit.

    In fact, I will give you a link to it. Judge for yourself.

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/06/jns-blog-exclusive-former-jacc.html

  8. Patrick Says:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    I don’t think this verdict was based so much on the law as the fact that he is, to some, an extremely irritating person. I think the jury decided that John should pay 60K because they didn’t like him and wanted to set the karma in balance.

    Unfortunately for the plaintiff, John can’t even keep up with his child support payments and is judgment proof.

  9. Brett Clark Says:
    March 22nd, 2011 at 9:17 am

    @Patrick: If the jury reached its decision based upon anything other than the application of the law to the facts presented in evidence, then the jury did not do its job.

    Providing truthful information as a matter of law is not tortious interference with contract. IMHO, the statement about mortgage fraud cannot form the basis for the tortious interference claim since the jury found affirmatively that the statement was true. Unless there is some independent basis in the record for tortious interference, then the verdict is probably vulnerable on appeal.

  10. John Hoff Says:
    March 22nd, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    I never had the feeling the jury disliked me at all. In fact, I remember a moment when the plaintiff attorney was asking me about an article I wrote “attacking” Lennie Chism, who ran for 5th Ward City Council and came in fifth in a five-person race.

    When I said, “The man threw a woman from a moving car…allegedly, according to a police report. He was running for public office. I had the information in my hands. You better believe I published it…”

    At that moment I felt a strong connection with the “lunch lady” juror. No, I never had the feeling the jury disliked me at all. They ruled what I wrote was the truth.

    I should make it clear what was the ONE SENTENCE on trial, here, for defamation. Here is that sentence:
    ———-
    Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.
    ———-
    Here’s a link to the article in question. Ruled NOT DEFAMATORY.

    http://adventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2009/06/former-jacc-executive-director-jerry.html

    By the way, “Patrick” is the name of an annoying troll who has haunted my blog since around the time of the Pamiko properties scandal, the biggest story ever broken on Johnny Northside Dot Com, ultimately picked up by both Star Tribune and City Pages.

    http://www.startribune.com/local/85140312.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

    http://www.citypages.com/2010-02-24/news/paul-koenig-the-one-man-housing-crisis/

  11. JHG Says:
    March 22nd, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    To find out what John Hoff is all about check out these links:

    Especially the part of exposing and making fun of a RAPE VICTIM:.

    John Hoff is no naive, little undergrad. He’s a 40 yr old journalism grad student/activist who wrote a popular book on dumpster-diving,

    http://www.paladin-press.com/authormo_1202.aspx

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581605501/

    tried to challenge Seattle’s sidewalk sitting ordinance,

    http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1926120&date=19940819&query=%22john+hoff%22

    http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2570752&date=19971106&query=%22john+hoff%22

    was at the 1999 Seattle WTO riots, then moved to Grand Forks and got elected to the city council as a “Green Libertarian,” but pissed so many people off they held a special election and recalled him,

    http://www.seattleweekly.com/2000-08-09/news/leaving-las-seattle.php

    had some harebrained scheme to buy up cheap farmland and turn it into some kind of commune/prairie reclamation/hemp farm,

    http://web.archive.org/web/20030722045740/http://creativechaoscommunity.tourguide.net/

    at UND he got the student newspaper editor in trouble by publishing the real name of a date rape victim in his column,

    http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2004/12/03/PageTwo/News-Notes-820819.shtml

    caused all kinds of trouble in the student government,

    http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/media/storage/paper970/news/2003/02/28/Sectionsnews/Hoff-Appeals.Election.Committees.Ruling-1772718.shtml

    http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/media/storage/paper970/news/2003/03/07/Sectionsnews/Elections.Committee.Decision.Overturned-1772765.shtml

    http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/media/storage/paper970/news/2003/11/18/Sectionsnews/Student.Senate.Picks.Timboe.Over.Hoff-1771034.shtml

    since then, unfortunately for us, he’s been burdening us with his presence at the U of M, although he still manages to piss off North Dakotans,

    http://www.areavoices.com/hottalk/?blog=1609
    http://www.areavoices.com/hottalk/?blog=1665

    then threatened to have the FCC regulate the radio talk show host’s blog, because they offended him (free speech advocate he’s not, at least not if he disagrees with you),

    http://www.areavoices.com/hottalk/?page=comments&blog=1665

    and after the pathetic ant-war protests a few weeks ago, he criticized them for not targeting ROTC or the Washington Ave recruiting offices (like last year, when they covered the storefronts with red paint, 6 were arrested).

    http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/03/26/71260

    ***And this just touches on things John Hoff has prior to 2007. Publishing the name and making light of a young RAPE VICTIM is inexcusable. Not much this guy who floated into town a few years ago prints is honorable or factual.

    But then again the jury already decided that because they heard ALL the statements and not just the one touted in the news. They also heard ALL of the MALICIOUS ACTS of intentional interference.

    Even if Verdict form is the cause for the complete loss in the case, it is John Hoff’s fault.

    He supposedly graduated from law school and should have known better. It appears the jury gave John Willard Hoff an “F” on his Judgement Day.

  12. Patrick Says:
    March 22nd, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Mr. Clark,

    I agree with you that it doesn’t appear as if the jury followed the law, at least not based on what I now know. That said, there was all sorts of evidence at the trail that neither of us are familiar with.

    I think we can agree that judges don’t like to upset jury verdicts. I think it is also true that on appeal the appellate court can look for any evidence supporting the verdict and use that to uphold the verdict. The appellate court doesn’t necessarily have to agree with the verdict, rather their job will be to find some evidence supporting the verdict.

    And I’m not sure who the “troll” that John is speaking of is. I found the story through the star tribune and through google found some of the anti-john hoff websites. If you follow these links you’ll see the court documents from his feeble attempts to avoid his child support obligations, which demonstrate that he is judgment proof. So I hope the plaintiff wouldn’t put too much effort into collecting (unless of course they were just doing it for spite).

  13. Jim Watkins Says:
    March 23rd, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @ John: I motivate you? To do what? Your style of reporting the so-called “news” makes Geraldo and Morton Downey Jr. look like the most respected journalists in the world. But, I am glad I motivate you. It has been interesting looking into your background to say the least. I forget but, how long were you on the Grand Forks City Council before a special recall election was held to remove you from office? Four months? Oh, here is the link that talks about that fiasco: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2000-08-09/news/leaving-las-seattle.php/#

    Remember when you published the name of a rape victim that got your editor in a mess of trouble? Even Geraldo wouldn’t do that.
    Anyway, anyone wanting to learn about John Hoff can visit my site at: http://johnnynorthside.net

    @ Megan: What a disclosure! That seems to be the thing you cling to every time you set out to discredit me. Nothing else of fact that you can use?
    Anyway, here is a disclosure of my own:
    DISCLOSURE: Megan “the Super Citizen” Goodmundson (also a current JACC board member) recently lost her house via foreclosure. After the redemption period ended, Megan’s parents, along with the help of a north Minneapolis Realtor purchased the house from the lender that foreclosed. The disturbing part about the deal is the lender refinanced the mortgage in 2004 for $161,000 and because of the down market at the time Megan stopped making payments, her parents were able to buy it from the lender for $32,000 in 2009!
    To recap the shady deal… This “super citizen” stiffed the lender for roughly ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS!
    It makes me wonder is you DISCLOSED to the lender who exactly was buying the house?
    And you have the audacity to run around town claiming to be one of the good guys trying to revitalize the neighborhood! You screwed the bank for $130,000 and you call other people a criminal?
    If your scam isn’t fraud, then what do you call it? (Folks, this is where Megan chooses to not answer. It is her style to point fingers but, not own up to her own wrongdoings)
    Here is the link to all the information:
    http://misadventuresofjohnnynorthside.blogspot.com/2010/04/foreclosure-at-2718-newton-ave-n-super.html

  14. Peter Says:
    March 23rd, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Should that be “pore over” rather than “pour over”?

  15. tyzaguirre Says:
    March 23rd, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    God is in the Details: Moore v. Hoff Jury Instructions

    In order to understand what was at issue, it’s important to understand what was contained in the Jury’s instruction and how it came into being. These instructions are the guidelines to be used by the jury upon which to base their collective decision. In spite of Judge Riley’s order to the attorneys in the case to produce jury instruction prior to the trial, Defense attorney Godfread failed to comply before the appointed time.

    http://www.mplsmirror.com/mpls/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=816:god-is-in-the-details-moore-v-hoff-jury-instructions&catid=34:local-news&Itemid=103

  16. Jerome Says:
    March 24th, 2011 at 12:58 am

    As one who has followed this case from the beginning, I disagree with Patrick that the jury did not follow the law. They did in fact follow their instructions and their verdict was fair and just.
    I think the basic fact is that they saw is that John Hoff is a malicious predator who enjoys the misery, hurt, and harm he inflicts on his victims. He loves the feeling of power, he has stated so, and has stated his desire to be the “dominant blogger in north Minneapolis”, and woe to anyone who gets in his way.
    There is absolutely no question that John Hoff intends to cause his victims emotional harm and distress. Just read his blog. He doesn’t “report” news facts. He embellishes his articles with character assassinations, derogatory comments, spiteful insinuations, and hurtful comments. It is absolutely his desire to destroy a person’s reputation without any consideration for feelings or how his comments will have an effect on the person, or the person’s family. He appears to be a heartless and inhumane predator. If you should cross John Hoff he will threaten you with “1st Amendment retaliation”. In other words he will abuse the freedom of speech to destroy your reputation in retaliation for whatever problem you caused him. And there is absolutely documented evidence that these are accurate statements, and his blog is the best source of this evidence.
    John Hoff has a trail of victims going back at least 10 years, in multiple states.
    One can only assume that the jury saw John Hoff for the person that he truthfully is: a mean, nasty, vindictive, malicious, inhumane, cold-hearted, thug. The man clearly has no conscience. And no matter what comment you may post to his blog he has some sardonic “in-your-face” response. And to make matters worse, he has absolutely no grasp of the meaning of the comments that are critical of his behavior. The only thing he sees in those comments are spelling and grammatical errors.
    Look at the facts. He just lost a civil case to the tune of $60,000 + fees, and the first thing he does is start writing articles threatening to expose the Plaintiff from the civil suit [Jerry Moore] to more harassment and emotional distress. John Hoff doesn’t comprehend that the jury awarded damages for emotional distress. The only thing that his brain appears to be processing is that the jury said that certain facts in his article were not false.
    So somehow his mind manufactures the rational that it is acceptable for him to subject Mr. Moore to further harassment, character assassination, and more emotional distress.
    It is just totally bizarre to me that John Hoff, who has a law degree and experience working with mentally disturbed people, is so absolutely ignorant of why his life is continually in a downward spiral. He clearly has no concept of his own self-disintegration.
    Those that comment in his blog that he needs serious psychological therapy may be making the most truthful statements published in his blog.

  17. John Hoff Says:
    March 24th, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Really? The guy who tries to expose all the mortgage fraud in his neighborhood is the one with no conscience? Funny.

    Jerome puts one thing very well.

    Just read the blog.

Leave a Reply