Courtroom games.
MR. SCHNACK: ... However, I sincerely believe, and I put this to you, that Watchtower does not need to be punished by another monetary award.
Why is that?
Ms. Conti said she wanted to change policies. That's why she brought this suit. And we feel bad for Ms. Conti. But I can assure you, and I can assure her, that Watchtower's policies continue to evolve. And I can safely say that, with her verdict yesterday, Ms. Conti has succeeded. I encourage you to award no punitive damages in this case.
The WTS attorney was trying to avoid punitive damages by arguing that WTS policies were changing all the time. "Don't punish us. We'll be good. Ms. Conti has succeeded in making us better."
This wasn't good enough for the jury.
Now that severe punitive damages were indeed awarded, in their appeal motions the WTS attorneys contend:
"Plaintiff and her trial counsel openly and repeatedly stated to the Court and the jury that the purpose of this lawsuit in general - and the claim for punitive damages in particular - was to force Watchtower to change its alleged national "policy of secrecy." As will be demonstrated below, doing so is a completely improper and unconstitutional use of a claim for punitive damages. On that basis as well, JNOV is similarly mandated."
"Now that you have punished us, we're crying 'Foul!'. We protest that the punishment was unfair, unconstitutional and without warrant."