The foreman of the jury that found that CNN committed defamation against U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young doesn’t believe the network did itself any favors during the high-stakes trial.
"I think it may change the way a lot of people look at CNN and maybe not take their news 100% to be correct," Katy Svitenko told Fox News Digital in her first interview.
Last month, Svitenko and five other jurors sided with Young, who had accused CNN of defaming him in a November 2021 report led by correspondent Alex Marquardt. The report implied Young illegally profited when helping people evacuate Afghanistan on the "black market" during the Biden administration's military withdrawal from the Taliban-run country that year.
After the jury reached its defamation verdict and ruled Young could seek punitive damages, Young and CNN reached a settlement.
JURY FINDS CNN COMMITTED DEFAMATION AGAINST NAVY VETERAN, SETTLEMENT REACHED ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Svitenko, a retired schoolteacher, believes CNN’s internal communications were among the most damning evidence shown during the trial. Messages presented to the jury included one CNN staffer calling him a "s---bag" and an "a--hole," one saying he has a "punchable face." Marquardt's own message telling a colleague "we're gonna nail this Zachary Young mf---er" was often cited throughout the trial.
"Some of those emails reminded me of middle school name-calling of people that they had never even met, or didn't know or, you know, bullying. And it was those emails that gave us the defamation charge," Svitenko reacted. "Alex Marquardt had put in an email, ‘I'm going to nail this Zachary Young.' At that point it seemed as though he had put a target on Mr. Young's back, and he was not going to let up until he reached his goal… It was obvious to the entire jury that he was out to get him."
That was the moment Svitenko decided it was defamation with malice.
"The jury pretty much agreed… those emails among the CNN employees were pretty bad. And not just one, it was several, at various levels throughout the corporation," she said to Fox News Digital.
CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: CLOSING ARGUMENTS MADE AS JURY BEGINS TO DELIBERATE LAWSUIT AGAINST NETWORK
Svitenko said CNN employees who testified would have had to get "on their hands and knees begging" for forgiveness for her to even consider an alternative outcome than defamation once she saw how they spoke about Young.
"It was just the opposite," Svitenko said. "The more they talked, the more unfair we thought it was."
Svitenko particularly had several qualms towards Marquardt, who testified that he only tried calling Young one time during a 2-week period before CNN aired the report.
"If I were going to interview someone, and I really wanted to get the information, I would have called several times a day, different times a day, night, until I could get in touch with this person," she said to Fox News Digital.
The phone call became a point of contention during the trial, as the plaintiff suggested Marquardt staged a fake phone call to Young for the cameras. Raw behind-the-scenes footage unearthed from the trial showed Marquardt joking it was "theater" to colleagues after he dialed Young on his cellphone. Marquardt testified that he called the number he believed to belong to Young and dismissed the "theater" line as a reference to an old "Saturday Night Live" sketch.
Svitenko said Marquardt’s joke was "ridiculous," and she isn’t convinced he bothered to call Young.
"I thought that after he said ‘theater,’ and then had a little grin or a little giggle there at the end. To me, that was just the same as him saying, ‘OK, I was acting. I've just completed my acting job,’ which was the follow-up to the telephone call that he was trying to call Zak," Svitenko said.
"Some [jurors] believe that he actually did try to make a telephone call. I personally did not believe that he had attempted to make a phone call," she continued to Fox News Digital. "To me, it didn't fly. I didn't think it was true."
CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: PLAINTIFF ACCUSES NETWORK OF FAKING CRITICAL PHONE CALL FOR ‘THEATER’
Questions remain about whether Marquardt actually called Young. One thing that was not in doubt, however, is how jurors personally felt about the CNN correspondent.
"He was arrogant. He acted as though he really didn't need to be there… he was far too important to be sitting there on the witness stand. And also, he had a memory lapse. If I recall correctly, many of his answers were ‘I don't recall,’" Svitenko said.
"And ‘I don't feel the need to apologize,’ we heard that over and over and over," she continued. "If this were one of my employees… I would have set that person down and said, ‘Listen, you are potentially going to cause this company millions and millions and millions of dollars. Go do your job. Be nice. Don't be arrogant… don't go down there and act like you're too good to be there."
CNN issued an on-air apology in March 2022 after Young threatened to take legal action. But throughout the trial, Marquardt and several CNN staffers testified they didn’t feel the apology was necessary. CNN senior vice president Adam Levine admitted to the jurors that the apology was merely a legal decision.
One of the central arguments made by CNN's lawyers and staffers who took the witness stand was that Young was a bit player in a story about "desperate Afghans," but that talking point didn’t sit well with the jury.
"The jury disagreed with that," Svitenko said. "It was not about the Afghans. It was about Zachary Young being defamed by CNN and using those things such as the Afghans facing exorbitant prices, etc. They were using that, and tried to make it appear as though that were the story. But that's not how it came across to the jury."
Svitenko said she was taken aback by comments Levine made on the witness stand claiming he didn't know off-hand how many viewers watched the defamatory report. She considered it one of the most outrageous moments of the entire trial.
"I just thought that was odd because I've never heard of anyone on television that was not concerned about ratings. To me, that was shocking," she told Fox News Digital.
Indeed, Levine testified that he didn’t know how the jury was supposed to determine how many people watched the segment at the center after it was revealed CNN did not provide viewership data for international airings. Levine did, however, provide data for United States-based viewership, but it was seemingly inadequate for jurors.
Another key focus of the trial was over the term "black market," as Young felt the term painted his work as illegal, but many CNN staffers testified that the term was accurately used.
As the jury foreperson, Svitenko began deliberations by asking each juror to define "black market" in their own way. One by one, each juror had the same answer.
"Around the table, it was ‘illegal,’ ‘illegal,’" she said. "The word illegal was included in every definition. And we thought it rather odd that every CNN employee, each and every one, defined it as ‘unregulated,’ which none of us had ever heard the term used before in relation to black market."
Svitenko said when deliberation first began, five of the six jurors immediately believed CNN defamed Young, while one Bay County resident wasn’t so convinced and remained a holdout by the time they were dismissed later that night.
"When we returned the following morning, that juror said that we were correct… that juror had reconsidered and felt we were correct," Svitenko said to Fox News Digital. "I wasn’t concerned… I assumed that sooner or later, that one person would come around."
The jury awarded Young $4 million in lost earnings, $1 million in emotional damages and declared that punitive damages were warranted against CNN.
"We knew that that was just petty cash to CNN. There really wasn't even like a ding in their piggybank. And we had intended to go much higher on punitive. Much higher," Svitenko said. "I think we were willing to go as high as $100 million, somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million to $100 million. We wanted it to be big enough to sting and also large enough to get the attention of other media outlets that maybe have a little, you know, a little bit of the same problems."
Svitenko said she and the rest of the jury were happy Young and CNN reached an undisclosed settlement so he can "get on with his life" and not worry about any appeals.
"I think CNN might have been a little bit afraid of what we may have awarded," Svitenko reacted.
Svitenko felt CNN's high-powered attorney David Axelrod (no relation to the CNN commentator of the same name) came off as "extremely arrogant" and "condescending" to the jurors.
"I felt as though he were talking down to us in the jury, oftentimes. And that didn't earn him any points," she said.
Axelrod did not respond to a request for comment.
In a stark contrast, Svitenko said Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman was a "bulldog," who came off as "compassionate" and "never condescending."
In his closing argument, Freedman urged the jury to "send a message" to news organizations by finding a powerful network like CNN liable for defamation, something Svitenko said resonated with her and the other jurors.
"We did want to send a message to other media outlets. That was discussed and that was one reason why we were willing to go so high on the punitive damages," Svitenko told Fox News Digital.
Meanwhile, Svitenko was irked by Axelrod's closing argument when he repeatedly instructed them to use "common sense" as he insisted CNN did not defame Young. By that time, Svitenko had made up her mind, so the notion that it was "common sense" to let CNN off the hook seemed absurd.
"He must have said that 40 times to ‘use common sense.’ He just implored us over and over to use common sense. So, we did," Svitenko said.
CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
CNN has previously said it will take "useful lessons" from the decision.
"We remain proud of our journalists and are 100% committed to strong, fearless and fair-minded reporting at CNN, though we will of course take what useful lessons we can from this case," a CNN spokesperson told Fox News Digital following the trial.
