I’m not Pete Davidson’s Lawyer, but I’m still a Lawyer — A high-level summary/guide to the Chyna v. Kardashian lawsuit (Day 2 — Opening Arguments)
Here to give you a broad overview of the trial proceedings as they progress and happy to try to generally answer questions you have about the law, the trial, what are normal trial tactics, what are not normal trial tactics, etc.
Here is Part 1
To start: Please see my friendly legal disclaimer below***
Day 2, Opening Arguments —The Part of the Trial Where Each Lawyer Gives the Jury to Cliff Notes (because watching trial can get boring and juries don’t always stay awake)
Okay, so the jury was selected and the trial starts. And the trial starts with Opening Arguments. What are Opening Arguments? Think of them as the Cliff Notes or outline to trial. Each lawyer gets a few minutes to make them and they basically tell the jury what they should make of the evidence as they watch it.
Basically this is each side’s attempt to frame the trial so that the jury interprets the evidence a certain way.
OPENING ARGUMENTS ARE IMPORTANT. You can start to guess what case the lawyer is going to make based on the opening arguments.
The Drama Kids in law school thrive at opening arguments. Everyone has a style, but this is the part of trial lawyers get to be emotional and tell a story. Also this is the part you see on TV a lot. You get to actually talk to the jury (but like not a conversation, but you get to acknowledge they exist)
An opening statement is supposed to be limited to a disclosure of what the evidence will be during trial, and it is not the time for commentary that is appropriate only during final argument. However, as “devil’s advocate,” a lawyer should be able to couch “what the evidence will be” in terms of “what the evidence won’t be.” For example, “Our expert, Dr. Smith will not testify that the standard of care is to leave a scissors inside the body of his patient; he will testify that the surgeon must not close the patient before all surgical instruments are accounted for.” Or, “The evidence will not establish that this corporation was unaware of the harmful potential of their product; the evidence will show that the people running this corporation knew their product would harm people.”
Here’s an SNL Lawyer doing opening arguments (because full-circle)
Anyhow, it opening arguments usually follow a pretty similar framework.
- “What the evidence here today is going to show you is X, Y, an Z.”
- You can’t go outside of the evidence for opening arguments though, so that is why drama kids tend to do well here. You have to present an argument while stating facts.
#1 LETS START: BLAC CHYNA’S OPENING ARGUMENT — A STORY OF AN ALREADY SUCCESSFUL WOMAN GETTING CLOTHESLINED BY THE KJs
Again, this is just what it seems to me.
I mentioned in my prior post that what makes this case so interesting and potentially winning is that it is two famous people against each other.(reminder, defamation cases against public figures are not historically winning cases, like ever, because of the high standard to show defamation against famous people). But what is so interesting here, is that both people are famous.
Why is does it matter it is famous v. famous?
It is an uncommon fact scenario to have a famous public figure v. another famous public figure.
Having famous v. famous creates more of an equal ground in the court room regarding likelihood of juries finding defamation occurred
- Juries do not like to find that an average person can owe a famous/rich person millions of dollars for a random statement.
- Juries also do not like to find that an average person statement can influence someone to act (which influencing someone to act is an element that needs to be proven for defamation)
So fact the defamatory statements are made by someone in power (versus average joe) gives some credence to the notion that these statements created actual harm.
Usually defamation statements are dismissed early on based on the fact that rarely can you make a case someone saying something resulted in someone else feeling compelled to act.
Anyhow, with that in mind — Chyna wants to keep the dynamic the potentially win-able famous v. famous — and the opening arguments suggest this dynamic is going to be a battleground so I think you are going to see Chyna’s lawyer try and make Chyna seem famous on her own and you are going to see the kardashians lawyer make Chyna seem not famous.
BACK TO THE OPENING STATEMENTS:
Chyna’s lawyer (Attorney Lynne Ciani) starts by talking about Chyna being famous pre-Kardashian.
She starts here opening statement by saying one of the biggest events in her client’s life years ago was falling in love with rapper Tyga after appearing in one of his videos in 2011, and later giving birth to their son, King Cairo, who is now 9 years old.
(See, the mention of the 9 year old son, such a long time ago — these details are thought out)
“Her professional life was taking off, her personal life was taking off,” Ciani said as she began laying out her client’s defamation claims.
(again, she’s saying she had both personal and financial happiness prior)
Ciani then gave an account of the couple’s whirlwind relationship and wild year of 2016.
They met in January, announced their engagement in April, announced they were having a baby in May, and in November began their reality show and had a daughter, Dream.
“They really clicked, and it was one of those relationships that once they clicked, it really moved fast”
(She’s prob setting the stage that this is not a normal relationship so don’t see it that way)
Chyna’s lawyer then lays some ground work that everything was fine and Rob’s had wishes that he “wanted it to keep going” and it WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE BUT FOR THE KJS.
(LET’S PAUSE HERE: To show damages in law you need “but for” causation. She needs to show the Rob and Chyna would have made it work but for the KJs)
And lets Keep going:
Both sides agree that on Dec. 4, 2016, a day Chyna and Rob Kardashian celebrated the renewal of their show for a second season, the two got into a terrible argument that permanently damaged their relationship.
(okay, interesting everything is fine when the show is renewed, neither side will dispute this in trial)
THIS ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE WHAT WE WILL SEE THE TRIAL TO CENTER AROUND. BOTH SIDES WILL BE TRYING TO CONVINCE THE JURY THEIR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
To quote the prophet Khloe — there is a third side (the truth) and that is what the jury is here for.
The differing accounts of that day will take up much of the trial
Ciani claims that the C Rob & Chyna pulled from E!, even despite having a filming schedule for the second season ready to go.
(this is establishing it was gonna happen, it wasn’t just a theoretical show)
Ciani further argued that Chyna’s side will enter text messages, including one that was supposedly sent from Kris to the showrunner for Rob & Chyna which allegedly had a simple message:
“Take her off the show.”
(but for causation again yall)
“Kris Jenner set out to have ‘Rob & Chyna’ canceled…And she brought in her three daughters to help accomplish that.”
(okay, so looks like KJ is going to be put on fire here, but also makes sense as she probably has more production say with E! and is older and more experienced.)
“Chyna wanted to bring the ‘real’ back into reality TV and a real relationship has its ups and downs. Kris Jenner falsely told them [executives and producers] that Chyna beat the s**t out of Rob’s face and asked to take her off the show.”
(some shade)
Cianni says they have video evidence to prove that Kris was making that up — unaired footage from around the same time which she says will show Rob without a scratch on him. The attorney insists … no attack happened.
(Okay, back to things I mentioned in my post, to win the case chyna needs show the KJs had Actual Knowledge and Actual Malice are truly just unbelievably difficult to prove in court. To prove it you need usually:
- Evidence showing the KJs straight knew what they said was false
- Evidence acknowledging they mentally understood what they stated was false (think like a text or something that may say “I don’t care that Rob called and said it didn’t happen, I don’t like Chyna and want her off the network”) ← — The statement is probably meant to satisfy this element. KJs knew it was false and did it anyway)
- Evidence that the KJ then took this false statement and intentionally spread it solely with the intention to hurt Chyna
Like circumstantially you can speculate this could be true, but to meet the standard these things are actually true is not easy. People rarely put master plans in writing.)
Cianni also says they have evidence that’ll prove Kim herself helped get their show canceled. The attorney says there was a “kill fee” of $100k … but Chyna never accepted it, because she was already making around $90k an episode.
(Again, back to the Chyna has her own fame and money thing)
Cianni says there were other lies uttered about her client … including the idea Chyna and Rob were not together during the filming of their show, the notion Rob and Chyna couldn’t be in the same room together, the claim that Season 2 was never greenlit and that footage for Season 2 was never shot, and the contention there was no creative plan long-term.
(Again, more shade at the KJs)
FIN of Chyna
Summary: Chyna wants to keep the dynamic the potentially winnable, so famous v. famous — and the opening arguments suggest this dynamic is going to be a battleground. Chyna’s lawyer will try and make Chyna seem famous on her own and you are going to see the kardashians lawyer make Chyna seem not famous w/o the KJs.
#2 : KJS OPENING ARGUMENT — A STORY OF A WOMAN DOWN ON HER LUCK TRYING TO TAKE EVEN MORE FROM THE KJS (WHO WORKED FOR THEIR MONEY), BC GREED AND SUCH.
Rhodes’ (the KJs atty) made his arguments about supposed desire to become “one of” the world-famous reality TV moguls.
He began by introducing his clients and having them stand.
He then stated Kris Jenner “manages the vast empire that this family has built from scratch” and calling Kim Kardashian “one of the world’s most famous people.”
(Interesting, I wonder if this is why Kim was on her righteous get off your ass and work comment, she was probably trial prepping around the time of the interview and it looks like the lawyer is trying to show the the KJs built something with hard work over years and Chyna just leeched onto their hard work)
Chyna, he said, badly wanted what they have.
“The evidence is going to show you that Miss White would say or do anything to be part of this family,” Rhodes said.
“Miss White wanted something. She wanted to be one of them… She wanted that name. The evidence is going to show you that Miss White would say or do anything to be part of this family.”
(He’s setting up the KJs deserve their money from working for it and Chyna just is leeching — I really feel like trial prep may have messed with Kim’s mentality some for that interview re working).
He said the couple’s reality show was cancelled not because of any machinations by the Kardashians, but because they broke up.
(But for causation again, except he doesn’t want it to be the show failed but for the KJs)
There is no ‘Rob & Chyna’ show if there is no Rob and Chyna,
(This fact will need to play out at trial)
“[Chyna] said we killed the show because we are bad people … but look at what’s going on behind the camera. The family was on board with what was proposed … if they could work on their relationship. But it couldn’t get fixed.”
“This relationship was fraught with problems and the network was very worried. [Kardashian family members] were acting against their own financial interest to protect someone they loved.”
(Okay, so I bet we will see a narrative along the lines that even if the statements of the KJs were untrue, it doesn’t matter, they were broken up and E! wouldn’t have wanted to the show of people fighting all the time)
Chyna takes the stand next :).
****The contents of this post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. Nothing I post is intended to constitute an atty-client relationship. I am not involved in any way in the case or represent any parties involved. I am not your lawyer, if you need a lawyer, I highly advise you to seek advice of a lawyer.
