The legal team representing Ken Agyapong has filed a letter requesting the court to reduce an $18 million jury award in a defamation case, arguing that the verdict is excessive and driven by emotion rather than evidence.
In a letter to the Honorable Jeffrey B. Beacham, J.S.C., attorney E. Carter Corriston Jr. of Breslin and Breslin, P.A. called for a remittitur— a legal procedure that allows a judge to reduce an excessively high jury award. The defense contends that the amount, reached in just 30 minutes, “shocks the judicial conscience” and lacks a rational connection to the evidence presented at trial.
The case, Anas vs. Agyapong vs. Asamoah (Docket No. ESX-L-002918-22), revolves around statements made by Agyapong about investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas. The jury found in favor of Anas, awarding him $18 million in damages. However, Agyapong’s legal team argues that the jury was improperly influenced by statements made during the plaintiff’s closing arguments.
“The verdict was less about the evidence and more about the plaintiff’s counsel urging the jury to ‘stop the defendant’ rather than render a fair and reasonable award,” Corriston wrote. He further claimed that Anas’s attorneys focused on issues unrelated to the alleged defamation, including the dangers Anas and his family faced in Ghana and the murder of fellow investigative journalist Ahmed Hussein-Suale.
According to the letter, no substantial proof was presented during the trial to justify such a large damages award. The defense argues that Anas did not provide expert testimony, witnesses, or personal accounts of financial or emotional harm suffered due to Agyapong’s statements.
Legal precedents cited in the letter highlight that while jury verdicts are generally given deference, courts have the power to reduce awards deemed “grossly excessive.” Corriston referenced several rulings, including Cuevas v. Wentworth Grp. and Orientale v. Jennings, emphasizing that damages must be grounded in fact, not emotion.
The defense’s letter does not seek to overturn the jury’s finding of liability but asks the court to intervene in what it calls an unjust punishment rather than fair compensation. “The jury’s decision was not based on a fair assessment of the evidence but on an emotional appeal that resulted in an excessive verdict,” Corriston argued.
It remains to be seen whether Judge Beacham will grant the request for remittitur or if the case will move forward with additional legal proceedings.