Legal history has repeated itself: actor Robert Blake, found not guilty of the murder of his wife in a criminal trial, has now lost a civil case — most likely putting on hold for a long time any hopes he had of returning to the show biz mainstream and perhaps the latest person to experience “celebrity justice.”
It’s an interesting phenomenon: a high-profile gets acquitted who is the subject of slews of jokes on late night television implying that he’s guilty gets off during the trial but is nailed in a civil trial. Here are some details from the New York Daily News — one of which being that, unlike O.J. Simpson who suffered a similar fate, Blake personally helped sway the jury against him during the civil trial:
BURBANK, Calif. – A criminal jury let actor Robert Blake off the hook eight months ago, but a civil jury found him responsible yesterday for the murder of his wife and ordered him to pay $30 million to her kids.
Just minutes before the verdict was read, the smiling “Baretta” star wolfed down French fries and joked with his lawyers outside the courtroom, appearing confident things would go his way.
But the gaunt 72-year-old actor looked stunned as the clerk announced the jury’s 10-2 vote that he had “intentionally caused the death of Bonny Lee Bakley.”
A unanimous verdict is not required in civil cases.
None of Bakley’s four children were in the courtroom for the verdict, but their lawyer Eric Dubin was elated.
“This was a good day for justice. These kids lost their mom and that got overlooked over the years. This was a real family. This was a real person. And to have that validated in a court of law means an awful lot to these kids.”
The panel of nine men and three women deliberated about 28 hours over eight days following the two-month-long trial that included eight days of testimony from Blake. Jury foreman Bob Horn said the actor “was probably his worst enemy on the stand.”
While testifying, Blake lashed out at Dubin and elicited laughter from jurors, lodging his own objections and calling the lawyer “chief,” “junior” or “sonny.”
An AP story notes that this could well be “celebrity justice”:
When a civil jury found actor Robert Blake liable for his wife’s murder after he had been acquitted of criminal charges, O.J. Simpson saw parallels to his own trials of the 1990s.
Some legal experts called it another case of “celebrity justice” a high-profile figure targeted in civil court because of money or fame.
“This was absolutely a celebrity verdict,” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson. “This was O.J. all over again. The jury is saying, ‘You got away with murder in the criminal case. Now we’ll make you pay big time.”
n Friday, a jury ordered Blake to pay $30 million to Bonny Lee Bakley’s four children, saying the former “Baretta” star “intentionally caused the death” of his wife, who was gunned down in 2001 in the actor’s car outside a restaurant where the couple had just dined.
Jurors didn’t indicate what specific evidence caused them to find Blake responsible. Some acknowledged they were swayed by Blake’s combative attitude while testifying: “We believe that Mr. Blake was probably his worst enemy on the stand,” foreman Bob Horn later said. But Horn said the jurors were convinced the evidence met the standard for their decision.
M. Gerald Schwartzbach, Blake’s lawyer, said he believes Bakley’s children wouldn’t have sued the 72-year-old actor if he hadn’t been a celebrity.
“The idea that celebrities get a break is a fiction,” Schwartzbach said.
Blake disclosed early that he was broke and owed more money to the Internal Revenue Service than he has in assets, Schwartzbach said. Bakley’s daughter said she didn’t care if she ever got paid, but her lawyer, Eric Dubin, who virtually gave up his law practice for three years to pursue the case, is expected to pursue Blake for the money.
Indeed, after the verdict, some newspaper stories suggested that an elated Blake was primed for some kind of comeback. However, this verdict virtually ensures that if he works again it’ll be cast as some kind of curiosity due to his notoriety. If he was acquitted he could move on; but now — like OJ — the money he’ll make from being in the show biz mainstream is effectively guillotined.
The irony is: he’s an actor but it seems as if he was convicted because the jury gave him lousy personal reviews. Newsday reports:
Asked how they determined the amount of damages, juror David Lopez said, “How do you put a price on the life of somebody? When you lose a parent, how do you replace that?”
Juror Luis Albana said he didn’t remember Blake as an actor, but criticized his behavior on the stand. He “should have been more mellow.”
Asked if the jury thought Blake had committed the crime, juror Lonnie Lucero responded, “To this point, who knows, we’re not sure.”
Jurors said it took four days to reach agreement, with a large enough majority voting that Blake was liable. The rest of the deliberations were spent on fixing damages.
“It’s a message to anybody else who would even consider doing something like this,” said one juror.
Blake quickly left the Burbank courthouse without comment. He did not testify at the criminal trial, but spent eight days on the stand during the civil trial.
“The fact that he took the stand shows that the jury just didn’t believe him,” said Duke Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky. “Everything came down to the question: Is Robert Blake believable. Here the jury didn’t believe him.”
Chemerinsky also pointed out that Blake didn’t testify in the criminal trial, where a unanimous verdict was required.
Dubin said he believed that if prosecutors had been able to question Blake under oath in the criminal trial, he would have been convicted.
“When it works, it’s the best system on the planet,” Dubin said. “Today it worked.”
To those who think Blake is innocent of the murder of his wife, it’s celebrity justice. To those who think he was another California celebrity who got off easy in a state seemingly still wowed by fame, the final verdict was justice. But, no matter what, to Blake it means a gloomy personal and financial future.