From a legal point of view, however, the in limine order seems reasonable. In fact, the judge’s analysis seems fair and skillful throughout the order (based on my one quick read).

Bizarre case and verdict. Maybe the appellate filings will shed some light on what was really going on. Thanks again for providing the docs.

OP is right, this would be a great movie.

The situation gets even curiouser though even after reading the reply brief. The plaintiff does not appear to dispute any of the factual allegations of the defendants’ brief. The plaintiff essentially argued that witness credibility was a matter for the jury.

But is that always true? There were two witnesses to the purchase of the pink diamond: Stafford himself and another witness.

There are no invoices, receipts, photographs, certificates, appraisals or any other documents related to or regarding the pink diamond. So whether the pink diamond existed is purely a matter of witness credibility.

One of the witnesses was Stafford himself.

Stafford testifies he met a mysterious German, while waiting in a lunch line at Las Vegas. The German sold Stafford a pink diamond worth $1.5 million for only $8,000 because the German felt the diamond was bad luck. The money was paid in untraceable cash with no receipt, and the German cannot be located, nor is there any evidence of his existence.

Stafford did produce one witness who claimed he saw the pink diamond. That witness is currently in federal prison for falsifying a loan application.

Now, the plaintiff is correct that credibility determinations are ordinarily for the jury. But where one witness is the plaintiff himself, who stands to make millions of dollars from his testimony and who’s story seems ludicrous; and the other witness is in prison for fraud – can the court do nothing?

One hypothesis, and I would be curious if someone who attended the trial could comment on its accuracy, is that jury did not like the defendants’ employees’ religion. The Klein website suggests these employees are very orthodox Hasidic Jews, see for example the photograph here. The plaintiff’s complaint repeatedly alludes to an employee with a characteristically orthodox Jewish name, “Heim” by which I think he likely means “Chaim.” Anyway, did Hasidic Jews testify at trial and, if so, did their dress and religion bias the jury?

I have two final questions:

1. Why did the jury believe Stafford? (Was it logic, anti-Semitism, or some other factor); and

2. The defendant counterclaimed alleging the plaintiff had engaged in “a pattern of conduct which involves scamming shipping carriers and insurance companies by alleging lost shipments pursuant to an insurance fraud scheme” (quoted from OnPoint web site). This is not mentioned in the motion for directed verdict, however. Did the jury hear about these past alleged scams?

Actually that is the very best kind to steal

OTOH, it sounds like Klein got taken. Yet a jury heard the evidence and bought Stafford’s story. They were there, I wasn’t.

Reversing the viewpoint. I assume Stafford’s attorney saw some merit, some potential, in his case. If not, did they choose to work with no hope of reward? Perhaps Stafford paid them from his own pocket?

The story according to that brief is rather unbelievable. For example, there were no witnesses to this Stafford fellow ever having had this diamond, except one guy who was currently in prison for fraud! And the premise, that Julius Klein would happen to steal the only diamond for which no proof of existence existed – no paperwork, no photograph, no certification, no receipt of purchase (paid for in untraceable cash) – is bizarre.

Does anyone have the plaintiff’s reply brief to get another side of the story? I hate to make a firm conclusion without reading that side too.

Or did they just perhaps not like the name “Julius Klein”?

Either the seller instituted a scam at the very same time JDK lost the tape or the tape was lost as part of a scam by JKD. The Razor would suggest the second.