Greer Files Motion for New Trial

Greer Files Motion for New Trial

Spread the love

Yesterday Attorney David Grudberg, on behalf of Greer the Goat, filed a Motion for a New Trial.  Attorneys Amanda Nugent, who works in the same office with Grudberg, and William Ward were also listed on the motion, but only Grudberg signed the motion.  It looks like the Goat is no longer happy with the services provided by Attorney Ward.  Ward has been sent to the goat house.

Grudberg argued that the $15 million verdict for compensatory damages, plus $5 million in punitive damages, is “exorbitant” and “dramatically out of step with similar cases both in Connecticut and throughout the country.”  Grudberg listed a number of recent child rape cases in Connecticut and argued that none of them came close to the $20 million dollar verdict against the Goat.

Grudberg argued, “The only Connecticut case our research has revealed that even comes close to the verdict returned in this case is Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, the jury awarded $4 million on the negligence claim and $3 million on the infliction of emotional distress claim…”  Grudberg is billing the Goat about a thousand bucks an hour between his time and Attorney Nugent’s time, and this is the best he could do?  Larry Noodles did a two second google search and found the Stamford CT case of Elizabeth Spalter, who got a $15 million jury verdict in compensatory damages with $5 million in punitive damages on March 10, 2017 after she was raped by her father as a child.  I will send the Goat a bill for my services helping Attorney David Grudberg with his legal research.  Doesn’t David have an intern who can do his research?

Grudberg rehashed the same arguments he made during trial: because Mirlis continued to see the Goat years after the abuse should “lead one to question whether the claimed abuse had occurred at all, no testimony was offered to attempt to explain plaintiff’s post-high school insistence on continuing to associate with, and honor, Greer, it raises a critical question: how much emotional damage could plaintiff reasonably have suffered?”  Grudberg has sunk to Ward levels.  First he doesn’t tell Judge Shea about the $20 million verdict in the Spalter case.  And now he blames the victim for faking his emotional damages.

Grudberg expressed outrage that the jury awarded $20 million to a child who was repeatedly raped by the depraved Goat, the same Goat who took the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he raped Mirlis.  Grudberg argued:  “The jury’s award of $15 million should not be allowed to stand.  It can only be understood, or explained, as the product of understandable (but impermissible) emotion, anger and prejudice, triggered by the nature of the allegations in the case and defendant Greer’s invocation of his constitutional rights in the jury’s presence, the Court has power to remedy this wrong; indeed, this is exactly the type of situation that calls out for the Court’s power to regulate ‘runaway’ juries.  The jury reached a conclusion that cannot be justified by law, fact or precedent, but is best understood as the product of passion and emotion. Fortunately, our system of justice has built-in safeguards to ensure that such miscarriages of justice can, and should, be remedied.”

Grudberg must have been paid many gold bars to get him to defend this depraved molester with such passion and vigor.  To describe the jury verdict against a child rapist as a “miscarraige of justice” is a miscarraige of justice.  Hopefully Judge Shea will show Grudberg to the goat house and deny his motion.

2 thoughts on “Greer Files Motion for New Trial

  1. I don’t know if Grudberg is inherently slimy or not. But if he wants to keep the Goat as a client he probably got the message in the form of some angry, guttural grunts that the Goat expects him to become harder hitting.

    But seriously counsel Grudberg, did you write this parody with a straight face?

    The Goat’s Constitutional right to keep his goat piehole zipped does not mean that no one can have a problem with it. To argue otherwise is something the Johnny Cochrane spoof would argue on the Seinfeld finale.


    Here is the Johnny Cochrane spoof on Seinfeld where the character goes by the name Jackie Chiles.

    Cochrane / Chiles starts off here with an explanation of Constitutional rights which is about as credible as Grudberg’s stretch on behalf of the Goat.

    This later act by Cochrane / Chiles during Seinfeld’s criminal trial is more or less the same tone with which Grudberg is scraping the barrel to defend the Goat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.