How we won Fualaau
(Continued - Page 3)

And the inconsistencies in plaintiffs’ varying accounts were remarkable. It is not often we as lawyers get a case so full of admitted contradiction. At one point during trial, Vili Fualaau admitted that his trial testimony so directly contradicted his earlier deposition testimony that he was guilty of perjury. At another point, he testified: "What do you want me to do, apologize for lying in my deposition?"

We tried the case to a jury of 12, with two alternates. The trial lasted more than two months. Pretrial motions had begun March 11, 2002, and the jury rendered a defense verdict on May 20, 2002. Despite the length of the trial, the jurors were just as attentive in week nine as they were in week one. Ten of 12 jurors found that the School District was not negligent. One juror thought that the School District was negligent. The twelfth juror abstained, not voting either way on the issue of the District’s negligence but declined comment on her reasons.

We of course are pleased with the outcome as is the School District. We are thankful that those involved early on had the wherewithal to investigate early and to document the facts of the case before memories faded, or worse, become distorted by relentless media coverage. It was a rare, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime experience to participate in such an unusual case, and the relentless television and press coverage were a constant reminder of the unique nature of the lawsuit. This case truly involved "sex, lies and videotape." We are happy to have been able to serve the Highline School District and the larger community obtaining what our clients and we consider a just verdict. Ironically, Vili Fualaau himself seemed to underscore our client’s blamelessness when he voluntarily re-enrolled in the Highline School District at the very time when his lawyers were in the trial against that same School District.

The last chapter of this saga still has yet to be written. Vili testified that he and Mary plan to write a book after she is released from prison in October 2005. We understand from European media sources that a jailhouse wedding is planned.
We also want to thank the many Lee Smart lawyers and staff who worked on this case, particularly attorney Jennifer M. Ilenstine, whose years of hard work in discovery paid dividends at trial.

The Lee Smart Quarterly is a publication of the law offices of Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin & Patterson, P.S., Inc. for clients and others. It is intended as general information only and is not to be construed as legal advice. You should consult an attorney if you have any specific legal questions.

Editor: Jeffrey P. Downer	Eml: jpd@leesmart.com
Phone: 206.621.3482	Toll Free: 877.624.7990