Elon Musk’s legal team is requesting that a federal judge take a closer look at a jury’s recent decision which held Musk responsible for misleading investors. They argue that the verdict was influenced by bias and turned the judicial process into a “mockery.” In a letter to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, attorney Alex Spiro expressed concerns over the fairness of the trial. He mentioned that Musk feared he wouldn’t get a fair trial and that his worries were confirmed, as the records suggest.
This month, a jury concluded that Musk misled investors during his attempt to buy Twitter, now known as X, in 2022. The case centered on claims that Musk made misleading statements that affected stock prices. Spiro highlighted questionable jury behavior, noting the prominent use of the number 420—often linked to Musk—in the verdict, suggesting it was a “number joke” rather than a neutral legal application.
Musk has a history of linking 420 to internet jokes and marijuana culture. In 2018, the SEC claimed he set Tesla’s stock price at $420 due to those connections, which he deemed “unreasonable.” Spiro pointed out that the jury’s emphasis on the $4.20 figure in blue ink raised alarms about bias and suggested that it was used to send a message to Musk.
Moreover, he argued that how damages were presented, distinct from other numbers, indicated that prejudice might have influenced the verdict instead of straightforward evidence. Musk’s legal team has been actively challenging the trial’s fairness, citing issues like negative juror opinions and alleged misconduct by opposing counsel, which might have hindered Musk’s ability to deliver crucial testimony.
Surveys of jurors reportedly showed strong negative feelings towards Musk, raising concerns about effectively screening out biased jurors. Additionally, allegations suggest that opposing lawyers used tactics that distracted from the core issues of the case. Despite these issues, the jury didn’t entirely accept the primary claim that Musk intentionally manipulated Twitter’s stock price but still found him liable on a more specific point regarding his comments concerning the transaction.
Spiro commented that the jury’s mixed verdict points to a tendency to punish Musk personally rather than base the decision solely on evidence. He concluded that the jury’s verdict seemed more about personal sentiment towards Musk than fair application of the law.
At this time, the court has yet to respond to these claims, meaning further legal challenges might follow, potentially leading to a reversal or reevaluation of the ruling.
