CNN defamation trial: Jurors ask brutal questions about reporter’s aggressive pursuit of Navy veteran

PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA – Jurors in high trial for defamation v. CNN have reserved some of their toughest questions for the reporter because of her aggressive pursuit of U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young, the prosecutor in the case.

Young claims CNN defamed him in a November 2021 report by correspondent Alex Marquardt that first aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” suggesting he made illegal money off desperate people trying to flee Afghanistan after Biden administration military retirement, implying that he was involved in “black market” dealings and as a result destroying his professional reputation.

Katie Bo Lillis, an intelligence and national security correspondent who worked with Marquardt on the story, was peppered with questions about her conduct in her zealous effort to get Young to join CNN.

The questions, which were submitted in writing by jurors, were read aloud to Lillis by Judge William Henry.

CNN TRIAL FOR DEFAMATION: JUDGE KURI REMOVES CNN’S GENERAL ATTORNEY, ORDERS AN APOLOGY TO THE PROSECUTOR: ‘THIS IS NOT A KINDERGARTEN’

“Do you feel the American people have an obligation to talk to you or CNN?” Henry read the first question.

“No, no one is obligated to talk to us,” Lillis replied. “It’s their free choice whether they want it or not.”

“How far does someone have to go to not talk to you? Does they have to talk to you not to talk to you?” the judge read the following question.

“That’s a really good question,” Lillis responded with a laugh.

CNN LIBEL TRIAL: INTEGRITY NETWORK CHIEF DEFENDS CONTROVERSIAL REPORT AT CENTER OF LAWSUIT

After a long break, Lillis told jurors she had a “responsibility to the people in the story” as well as to “the American public, the American taxpayer, especially when I’m writing about government activities.”

“In this case, we had someone who could profit off of someone else’s misery because of the simply cataclysmically tragic situation in Afghanistan. I felt it was a higher priority for me to continue to seek answers from Mr. Young, rather than to somehow withdraw from the search for answers here,” said Lillis. “Because in this case, I was thinking about the Afghans trying to flee the country. And I was thinking about the many, many soldiers and former, you know, agency officials, CIA officers, officers that I knew for whom this is incredibly personal and incredibly painful, this idea that there are people who will be left behind.”

Lillis was then asked “When do you accept someone who doesn’t want to talk or comment?” to which she replied, “It very, very much depends on the context,” adding that she had a “higher priority” to dig into Young’s activities.

The same juror then asked a follow-up: “Do they lose that right because they express discomfort or avoid questions?” Lillis emphasized that anyone has a “right” not to talk to her, but noted that Young first approached her as a potential prospective client, but only after receiving notification that Lillis had viewed his LinkedIn profile.

“He could have stopped answering any of my questions. He could have completely disengaged. He didn’t do any of that. He kept talking to me,” Lillis told jurors.

CNN’S LIBEL TRIAL: REPORTER PRESSED ON HIS HARD PURSUIT OF NAVY VETERAN AS DEFENSE DOWNLOADS IMPLICATIONS

One of the jurors mentioned a conversation Lillis had with Young, who did not want to be identified in any report, when she told him that the conversation would informally give him “an opportunity to understand what we’re working on … and to make your case that keep your name out of it.”

“The opportunity to present your case to withhold your name makes it sound like you are guilty until proven innocent,” the juror wrote, which was read aloud by Judge Henry. “Can you clarify how your approach is actually the opposite, innocent until proven guilty?”

“Well, first of all, you know, we’re not a court,” Lillis replied. “Like the standard, you know whether someone’s behavior is worth publishing, whether it’s going to end up in a newspaper article, not whether it’s illegal or not. In this case, it’s, you know, whether it should be revealed that someone could profit from the misery of Afghans,” adding, “They had we have enough confirmation in the form of these text messages, basically, to suggest that there is a reason to ask these questions, so we continue to ask them, but if, you know, the claim was made that there is more here, then we would back off. Is that answer to question?”

“Not answered,” Judge Henry said with a laugh, then moved on to the next question: “Can you understand, given this fresh perspective, that your approach might scare someone?” He explained that it was a continuation of the previous question.

Lillis acknowledged that hypothetically someone “might be scared to be approached by a reporter,” but she dismissed the idea in this case because Young was publicly advertising his services on LinkedIn and was the first to message her.

“If you feel that vulnerable people are being taken advantage of, then is anyone obligated to talk to you?” another juror asked, to which Lillis responded by repeating that no one was “obliged” to talk to her.

“Do people have the right not to be named in the news?” one juror asked, confusing a CNN reporter.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

After a moment of thought, Lillis said she was struggling with the word “exactly.”

“I believe it is the responsibility of news organizations and journalists like myself to think carefully about whether the behavior we are going to expose and the person we are going to name are worthy of publication, whether it is in the public interest to know that this behavior is happening or that this named person is the one who implements,” Lillis said. “And in this case, I’m very confident that measure has been met.”

The juror’s final question concerned her judgment of Young when he would shut up or block prospective clients after learning they didn’t have the financial means to hire him, asking him “What do you think is an appropriate way to retire?” Lillis responded by saying that “a simple ‘I can’t help it'” would probably be an appropriate response, adding that what Young did “seemed a little harsh to me.”

The trial continues on Thursday and will be broadcast live Fox News Digital.