CM Punk testifies in defamation trial

General
1

Originally published at https://www.postwrestling.com/2018/06/01/cm-punk-testifies-in-defamation-trial/

Friday marked the fourth day of the defamation trial involving CM Punk (Phil Brooks), Colt Cabana (Scott Colton), and Dr. Christopher Amann.

Friday was also the first time that Punk would take the stand for his testimony.

Ross Berman of WrestleZone was once again in attendance at the Cook County Courthouse and has a report of the morning’s proceedings on their site.

Below are highlights from the testimonies:

Before anyone took the stand, the defense was looking for a verdict to be rendered citing that the plaintiff (Dr. Amann’s side) has yet to prove there were any defaming statements made, which was denied by the judge.

SCOTT COLTON a.k.a. COLT CABANA
-This was the second straight day where Colton took the stand
-The defense had Cabana go over his introduction to pro wrestling, early career and signing with the WWE in 2007
-He noted that it was Punk’s idea to do the 2014 interview, Cabana added that the wrestling community wanted to hear from Punk, who had not addressed his departure from the WWE until that interview
-Cabana didn’t recall Dr. Amann’s name ever coming up during the interview
-They re-visited the story of the lump on Punk’s lower back and Cabana stated he saw it prior to the Royal Rumble match in Jan. 2014, Cabana described the lump as “disgusting” and saw it several times
-One of the lines Punk used in the interview was, “They Z-Packed me to death”, Cabana was asked about this line and assumed that “they” were the WWE medical staff

[wp_ad_camp_1]

Berman wrote in his report that the lawyers from each side argued about what footage from the Royal Rumble match could be shown. After Punk is eliminated by Kane, they continued with Kane chokeslamming Punk through the announcer’s desk, Dr. Amann’s lawyer did not want the chokeslam to be shown and apparently led to some shouting in another room.

PHIL BROOKS a.k.a. CM PUNK
-Punk took to the stand and stated he was a UFC fighter and a freelance comic writer for Marvel
-He did not listen to the podcast interview just before the trial, which is kind of insane when you consider how long this case has dragged on
-Punk acknowledges being bitter at the time of the interview in 2014
-He said he wanted to do the podcast to set the record straight and address his fans
-Neither Punk or Cabana could recall if AJ Lee was present during the interview
-He noted going through a period of headaches, dizziness, narrowed vision, lack of sleep, no appetite, his neck couldn’t support his head
-He was vomiting after every wrestling match, going through spells of crying randomly, rib pain, and a coughing fit that began in Sept. 2013
-Punk said he had “his bell rung” by Luke Harper, prior to the November 2013 European tour and was treated on the tour by Dr. Samson, but not Dr. Amann with Dr. Samson providing him with a Z-Pack

This concluded the morning testimonies and they broke for lunch and will resume in the afternoon.

1 Like
2

“UFC fighter”

2 Likes
3

This one is difficult to analyze because of Wrestlezone’s biases and inexperience in reporting legal proceedings.

For example, the Wrestlezone scribe completely dropped the ball on reporting the cross-examination of Colton. Dr Amann’s attorney had been quite effective throughout the trial and I highly doubt that today he suddenly transformed into some 1-800-Lawyers TV ad attorney who failed to ask important, obvious questions.

The Wrestlezone report on Brooks’ testimony is clearly written by a fan-boi. As someone who doesn’t have a horse in this race, based on the report, I am curious if Brooks came across as douchey to the jurors as he did in written form.

I did not follow WWE when CM Punk was active, so I am somewhat ignorant of the in’s and out’s of his character. I heard him on Opie & Anthony a few years ago and he definitely made a good impression on me.

That being said, based on the report, at this point I think that it would be difficult for a jury to find Colton liable.

4

I keep going back to at the end of the day the jury will believe Punk probably had injuries and spoke about them on a podcast to his friend and that while he may have said things about Amman that weren’t exactly accurate that there’s enough reckless care with performers to not totally think Punk lies maliciously. There are no damages on Amman’s side by his own admission. Maybe Punk pays a little for emotion harm but Colt should be fine and this will be a nothing outcome

5

Also thank you very much @FitChicago for your contributions to the coverage as well as John as always.

1 Like
6

Juries are stupid so you never know what is going to happen… That being said (and my limited knowledge of the facts of this case) if punk never named the doctor and he was never punished (he still has his job) I don’t see how he owes anyone any money

7

The jury would have heard the podcast and apparently Amann was never mentioned during it. It hasn’t hurt his career and if anything he’s the guy who’s hurt his career by starting this case.

1 Like
8

One thing to keep in mind that is a big time advantage for Brooks and Colton: The State of Illinois requires a unanimous verdict in civil trials (whereas California and many other States do not).

1 Like
9

I have never been on a civil trail jury but I have been part of “voir dire” for three cases and never picked. I noticed every time they focused on “preponderence of the evidence” vs “beyond a reasonable doubt” for guilt.

Do you have any insight on the difference and how it effects civil trial judgements?

10

Sure. In civil lawsuits the plaintiff’s burden of proof is to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the defendant’s actions caused damage to the plaintiff. “Preponderance of evidence” simply means that there is at least a 50.01% chance that the defendant wronged the plaintiff.

Whereas “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest legal standard in the US. It is the government’s responsibility/burden to introduce evidence that proves the defendant is guilty of the crime that they are accused. This standard requires the prosecution to show that the only logical explanation that can be derived from the facts is that the defendant committed the alleged crime, and that no other logical explanation can be inferred or deduced from the evidence.

For a more detailed explanation of the difference and the reasons for them, I’d recommend this excellent article on Justia.

In a civil case like this, where the jury only needs to be convinced that it is more likely than not that the defendant caused harm/damage to the plaintiff, a defendant acting like an arse in court is a major problem.

3 Likes