Rebecca Zahau Wrongful Death/ADAM SHACKNAI FOUND RESPONSIBLE #6

[Jessica2012]

Adam certainly isn’t paranoid. In court depositions, the names of two internet trolls are stated that interfered with the case by filing false police reports at the urging of a third internet troll. They supposedly gave him information about a group that was out to get him - no matter if there was truth in it - or not. I hope he now uses some of his brother’s money to prosecute some of these folks. I would list their names, but I do not know if that is allowed.

I loved how Adam Shacknai called Keith Greer a . Adam seems like a very smart man to me.

<modsnipped> he seemed intent on clearing his name. If the Zahaus had actually had a case, they would have not fought the appeal. If they were so certain their “evidence” was concrete, why not have it confirmed twice. They knew it would very stand up to a competent Judge, IMO.

They also know, as does Keith Greer, that the ME will never change the cause of death and Adam Shacknai will never be criminally prosecuted.

What a farce this all has been.

 

[Jessica2012]

The show Breaking Homicide also did a reenactment of the hanging. They showed just how easily Rebecca Zahau tied herself up and went over that railing. The stunt woman even hit her head in EXACTLY the same places Rebecca did when she slid down that balcony. EXACTLY.

 

[Laughing]

Glad that he no longer has the verdict against him,

Link please.

 

[Jessica2012]

Hi Laughing, here are a few links...


“There is no legal judgement, which is how it should be, saying that Mr. Shacknai did anything wrong. It’s as if that never happened," said Seth Weisburst, Shacknai's lawyer in the lawsuit. Even so, Shacknai is angry with the outcome, because it deprives him of the opportunity to clear his name in court, Weisburst said.

"Mr. Shacknai is aware that most people are not going to understand the legal particulars," Weisburst said. "He very much wanted to take any opportunity he can, whether it’s in the courts or outside of the courts, to show that this is completely baseless and outrageous -- that he had nothing to do with the death of Rebecca Zahau.”

The terms of the settlement were not made public, but the Zahau family's lawyer, Keith Greer, confirmed that the settlement vacated the judgement in the civil case and precluded the family from taking further legal action agains Shacknai. "The civil case is done," Greer said.

Stunning end to Zahau civil case as family settles; judgment wiped out


A wrongful death lawsuit involving the girlfriend of a former Valley CEO has been settled, wiping out a roughly $5.1 million verdict against the business leader's brother.

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix...ai-wrongfuldeath-case-ends-in-settlement.html


Wednesday's dismissal vacates the jury's verdict due to a settlement reached between her family and insurers, for an undisclosed sum.

Shacknai, who wanted to overturn the verdict on appeal, was taken completely by surprise by the settlement and visibly angered by the maneuver.

"I guess my insurance company did an end around this whole process,” he told reporters after the dismissal. “They believed in my innocence but they were tired of throwing money at it. They settled for a pittance. Extortion is alive and well.”

Civil judgement against Shacknai for Coronado mansion death dismissed

 

[kay74]

I think if she had thrown herself over the balcony it would have nearly beheaded her.

 

[OverthinksIt]

Caitlin Rother posted a public update on her FB page and - with the help of two CA civil attorneys - clarified a few things many media reports mixed up.

The attorneys said that "for an undisclosed sum", the $5 million JUDGEMENT was vacated, but the VERDICT still stands.

Adam's two motions to overturn the verdict & get a new trial (the ones tentatively denied by the judge on 1/25) are now moot because the civil case is permanently over. On both sides.

Hope this helps...

 

[Betty P]

Caitlin Rother posted a public update on her FB page and - with the help of two CA civil attorneys - clarified a few things many media reports mixed up.

The attorneys said that "for an undisclosed sum", the $5 million JUDGEMENT was vacated, but the VERDICT still stands.

Adam's two motions to overturn the verdict & get a new trial (the ones tentatively denied by the judge on 1/25) are now moot because the civil case is permanently over. On both sides.

Hope this helps...

Thanks, yes that's the way I understood it. In the judge's decision, linked in another thread by cynic, the judge explains very clearly why she denied Adam's two motions. He didn't bring much in the way of evidence and did not demonstrate that there was any juror misconduct, etc.

Link to Judge Bacal's ruling

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/text-of-january-25-tentative-ruling-pdf.168557/

 

[Jessica2012]

That was a tentative ruling, made before she even looked over any of Adam’s motions. There was no motion presented on Wednesday because the Zahaus took money from Adam’s insurance company to settle the case. Therefore, the “tentative” ruling is moot. There was nothing to rule on.

I will still believe the newspaper articles and Adam’s lawyers that contend the verdict is also moot, over “lawyers” posting on Facebook.

 

[Betty P]

That was a tentative ruling, made before she even looked over any of Adam’s motions. There was no motion presented on Wednesday because the Zahaus took money from Adam’s insurance company to settle the case. Therefore, the “tentative” ruling is moot. There was nothing to rule on.

I will still believe the newspaper articles and Adam’s lawyers that contend the verdict is also moot, over “lawyers” posting on Facebook.

In her ruling, the judge references the arguments Adam made in his motions, so she did read them and ruled on them.

Here's an example

2. Jury Misconduct
Adam argues that the jury improperly considered evidence that was not before the Court. According to Adam, the jurors focused on a pair of women’s underwear that was found in the bedroom of the guesthouse even though the underwear was not discussed at trial. Adam also says the jury gave little attention to the exhibit books.
Contrary to Adam’s arguments, however, it appears the jurors did exactly what they were supposed to do: they considered all of the evidence received at trial, including both testimony and the exhibits received into evidence. That is what the jurors were instructed to do. See CACI 5002.
More importantly, there is no evidence that any juror did anything improper. A verdict may not be impeached by hearsay affidavits. People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1318 (abrogated on another issue by People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 1190). No juror declarations were submitted. Instead, Adam relies on declarations by private investigators (Walker and Sumner) who purport to relate their conversations with several jurors. The Court sustained plaintiff’s objections to these declarations. Furthermore, the underwear was one of the items of evidence collected at the scene and this fact was properly before the jury, as it was contained in a Scene Report which was admitted into evidence. Weisburst Decl., Ex. 15 [Tr. Ex. 855], p. 9, Item 20.
During deliberations, a juror inquired whether there is “any more information/evidence” regarding the underwear and other items that were collected. Adam argues that the Court erred when it responded, “The jurors have been provided with all the exhibits received into evidence” because this caused the jurors to consider evidence that was not before the Court. No admissible
evidence was provided to show what the jurors did. Again, more importantly, the Court’s response was proper, since no other evidence was offered at trial regarding the underwear. Finally, any objection related to this response was waived, as the parties agreed to it. ROA 1106.
Adam also argues one juror improperly interjected outside information. As the Court sustained the objections to Walker’s declaration, there is no support for this claim. Further, juror’s views of the evidence are “necessarily informed by their life experiences, including their education and professional work.” In re Malone (1996) 12 Cal.4th 935, 963. That is all the juror is alleged to have done.
A new trial is not warranted due to alleged misconduct of the jury.

 

[Jessica2012]

That is from the papers that Adam’s attorney filed for the motion date that was postponed. She never heard or read the papers that were prepared for last Wednesday’s hearing which was the true motion date. She refused to hear those or even allow them to be entered into the record since the motion was made moot since the case was settled by the Zahaus.

Did the Zahau’s settle the case because Adam’s team was challenging the claim that Rebecca had no children, and therefore Pari was not the legal heir?

 

[coastal]

That is from the papers that Adam’s attorney filed for the motion date that was postponed. She never heard or read the papers that were prepared for last Wednesday’s hearing which was the true motion date. She refused to hear those or even allow them to be entered into the record since the motion was made moot since the case was settled by the Zahaus.

Did the Zahau’s settle the case because Adam’s team was challenging the claim that Rebecca had no children, and therefore Pari was not the legal heir?

No. Did Adam think that would make him less guilty?

 

[Betty P]

That is from the papers that Adam’s attorney filed for the motion date that was postponed. She never heard or read the papers that were prepared for last Wednesday’s hearing which was the true motion date. She refused to hear those or even allow them to be entered into the record since the motion was made moot since the case was settled by the Zahaus.

Did the Zahau’s settle the case because Adam’s team was challenging the claim that Rebecca had no children, and therefore Pari was not the legal heir?

One would think that Adam's attorney would have included that argument in the first motion he filed. He didn't, he just argued that RZ's mother was not legally dependent on RZ for financial support. IANAL. JMO.

Why does the Shacknai family keep trying to claim that RZ's younger sister is her daughter?

 

[Seattle1]

Hi Laughing, here are a few links...

“There is no legal judgement, which is how it should be, saying that Mr. Shacknai did anything wrong. It’s as if that never happened," said Seth Weisburst, Shacknai's lawyer in the lawsuit. Even so, Shacknai is angry with the outcome, because it deprives him of the opportunity to clear his name in court, Weisburst said.

"Mr. Shacknai is aware that most people are not going to understand the legal particulars," Weisburst said. "He very much wanted to take any opportunity he can, whether it’s in the courts or outside of the courts, to show that this is completely baseless and outrageous -- that he had nothing to do with the death of Rebecca Zahau.”

The terms of the settlement were not made public, but the Zahau family's lawyer, Keith Greer, confirmed that the settlement vacated the judgement in the civil case and precluded the family from taking further legal action agains Shacknai. "The civil case is done," Greer said.

Stunning end to Zahau civil case as family settles; judgment wiped out
A wrongful death lawsuit involving the girlfriend of a former Valley CEO has been settled, wiping out a roughly $5.1 million verdict against the business leader's brother.

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix...ai-wrongfuldeath-case-ends-in-settlement.html

Wednesday's dismissal vacates the jury's verdict due to a settlement reached between her family and insurers, for an undisclosed sum.

Shacknai, who wanted to overturn the verdict on appeal, was taken completely by surprise by the settlement and visibly angered by the maneuver.

"I guess my insurance company did an end around this whole process,” he told reporters after the dismissal. “They believed in my innocence but they were tired of throwing money at it. They settled for a pittance. Extortion is alive and well.”

Civil judgement against Shacknai for Coronado mansion death dismissed

AS lawyers know they are are not citing a legal or factual opinion here, just marketing both themselves and their client!

You and a couple of MSN don't seem to grasp the suit ruled by California law, and that vacating a judgement is NOT same as vacating a verdict. (IMO, it's like you're saying AS bought himself a clean record! And sorry, no amount of arrogance, entitlement, and attitude will make it true).

Judgement (i.e., jury award) only was satisfied in full by settlement -- that's obvious.

However, it's the California Court's final word that matters here:

However, the judge said at Wednesday hearing that a settlement between Zahau’s family and an insurance company was reached “outside of the verdict” -- a development that essentially ended Shacknai’s retrial request.

With the settlement, the judge dismissed the case but noted that the verdict against Shacknai would remain. bbm

More specifically, in California, a defendant forfeits their right to seek relief of vacatur (verdict vacated) when voluntarily entering into a settlement agreement. Seeking relief in this case would further require defendant or AS to prove doing so serves the best interest of the public. Don't ever see AS proving that in this case.

Linked several times up thread.

ETA: Examples have already been posted in the thread demonstrating how different states have different rules as to when verdicts stand or vacated.

In Texas, Ken Lay's verdict was vacated as he died awaiting sentencing, and didn't have ability to appeal.

In Massachusetts, Aaron Hernandez verdict vacated upon his death under their longstanding precedent where the convictions of defendants who have pending appeals are vacated-- regardless if death by suicide.

Again, you can't buy your verdict vacated.

 

[Seattle1]

Caitlin Rother posted a public update on her FB page and - with the help of two CA civil attorneys - clarified a few things many media reports mixed up.

The attorneys said that "for an undisclosed sum", the $5 million JUDGEMENT was vacated, but the VERDICT still stands.

Adam's two motions to overturn the verdict & get a new trial (the ones tentatively denied by the judge on 1/25) are now moot because the civil case is permanently over. On both sides.

Hope this helps...

Thank you @OverthinksIt !

Hear, hear.

Reporter gets it right citing the advice of two CALIFORNIA attorneys. BBM

 

[Seattle1]

That was a tentative ruling, made before she even looked over any of Adam’s motions. There was no motion presented on Wednesday because the Zahaus took money from Adam’s insurance company to settle the case. Therefore, the “tentative” ruling is moot. There was nothing to rule on.

I will still believe the newspaper articles and Adam’s lawyers that contend the verdict is also moot, over “lawyers” posting on Facebook.

But you won't believe the Court. Why is that?

 

[Seattle1]

That is from the papers that Adam’s attorney filed for the motion date that was postponed. She never heard or read the papers that were prepared for last Wednesday’s hearing which was the true motion date. She refused to hear those or even allow them to be entered into the record since the motion was made moot since the case was settled by the Zahaus.

Did the Zahau’s settle the case because Adam’s team was challenging the claim that Rebecca had no children, and therefore Pari was not the legal heir?

Correction. Case was settled by the Parties.

Pari is RZ's mother.

Please be reminded this is a CALIFORNIA lawsuit. By statute, parents or siblings may file a wrongful death claim if no surviving Spouse, Domestic Partner, or Children.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Adam Shacknai: Zahau lawsuit settlement was $600K

Adam Shacknai’s insurance company paid the settlement. As a result, the jury’s $5.1 million judgment was tossed out and the verdict vacated....

In a surprise move, the settlement was announced this month, which wiped out the judgment and any possible appeal.

“I hope they realize it's a low amount – even though obviously $600,000 is more money than most of us will ever see at one time in our lives – I hope they realize that it went from $5 million to $600,000,” said Shacknai.

Shacknai also criticized attorney Keith Greer, who represented the Zahau family in their wrongful-death lawsuit.

“I think Greer sort of outran himself on this, getting involved in this case, thinking there would be a settlement years ago. And, there never was to our credit,” Shacknai said."

...

I guess he has come around to his usual self, whereas before he was stating the insurance company did badly, he is now positioning it to be above it all. What a sick *******

 

[Tiffanie]

The settlement amount was $600K. See link below:

Adam Shacknai: Zahau lawsuit settlement was $600K

 

[Seattle1]

The settlement amount was $600K. See link below:

Adam Shacknai: Zahau lawsuit settlement was $600K

Why stipulate a non disclosure agreement if AS can't keep his mouth shut?

Wait, he's off his public "trial persona" script now....

 

[nanwv]

“I think Greer sort of outran himself on this, getting involved in this case, thinking there would be a settlement years ago. And, there never was to our credit,” Shacknai said."
Wonder who the "our" includes. Guess, the brothers. BTW he should eat something, not looking to good.