Blake Makes His Appeal

The jury had a Baretta vendetta.

That's the thrust of the argument by Robert Blake's attorney, Gerald R. Schwartzbach, who appeared before an appeals court to request a reversal in the verdict against the actor in his wrongful-death civil trial two years ago.

The lawyer stood before the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles on Tuesday and stated that the $30 million judgment jurors ordered Blake to pay the family of his late wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, as compensation for her 2001 death was "so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience." Such an amount, Schwartzbach claimed, showed that the jury was inherently biased against Blake.

"All we asked for was a fair trial and it wasn't," Schwartzbach told the three-judge panel.  "Celebrities have the same rights as anybody...Mr. Blake was denied that."

Blake, 74, was acquitted in March 2005 of murdering Bakley while she sat in the couple's car outside a Los Angeles-area restaurant. Eight months later, however, a civil jury later found Blake "intentionally caused" his wife's death and ordered him to pay the massive verdict to her four children, including Rosie, the seven-year-old girl fathered by Blake.

During the hour-long hearing, Schwartzbach attempted to convince the appellate panel to green light a new trial, reiterating points he's brought up over the past two years alleging juror misconduct.

• Jurors were out to get Blake to make amends for his criminal acquittal as well as those of O.J. Simpson in his murder trial and Michael Jackson in his child-molestation case. "It is unrebutted that jurors said the amount of damages would send a message to the world," the lawyer said. "It is unrebutted that three jurors talked about the O.J. Simpson case."
• Schwartzbach said he had obtained sworn statements from several jurors admitting they violated the judge's order by talking about the case before all the evidence. He also says he has affidavits claiming jurors voiced their disgust for Blake from the outset of the case.
• One juror wasn't able to follow most of the testimony because he was hearing-impaired; when it came time to render a verdict, he just went along with his fellow panelists, according to Schwartzbach.
• Another juror concealed from the court that her daughter was serving life in prison for killing a teenage classmate.

Therefore, Schwartzbach argued, the jury's 10-2 ruling in favor of Bakley's family should be set aside.

Judging by the reaction from the appeals court, it might be a tough sell.

Justice Patti Kitching appeared to shoot down Schwartzbach's point about jurors talking about Simpson and Jackson's trials. "So what, counsel? So what if they did?"

Another judge expressed skepticism that pre-deliberation conversations among jurors could have prejudiced the final outcome.

"The problem here is you're trying to impeach the jurors with a he said-she said," Justice Richard Aldrich said.

However, at least one member of the panel seemed to agree that misconduct may have been committed by the juror who failed to disclose her daughter's crime, and that the jury should have abided by the lower court judge's orders to remain mum about Blake's case.

Schwartzbach, who represented Blake in his criminal trial, but not his civil case, told the panel that he was taking on the appeal for free because the former TV tough guy is broke and about in the process of filing for bankruptcy and because he believes in his innocence.

For his part, Bakley's family lawyer, Eric Dubin, vehemently urged the judges to reject the petition to overturn the verdict.

"Either you're going to trust the system or you're not. These jurors were good people. They worked hard," he said, noting that it's not uncommon for minor slip-ups to occur during trials.

No word when the appeals court will issue its ruling.