Elon Musk’s attorney is urging a federal judge to scrutinize a recent jury verdict that found Musk liable for misleading investors, arguing that the panel’s decision was compromised by bias and even “mocked” the judicial process.
“Mr. Musk came into this trial concerned that he could not have a fair trial decided by an impartial jury, that he would be deprived of the counsel of his choice, and that he could not present the full testimony of one of the key witnesses to his defense,” Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, wrote in a letter sent to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, the judge presiding over the case. “Unfortunately, and as evidenced by the record and expressed on the jury’s verdict form, each of those fears were realized.”
A jury this month found Musk had misled investors in his 2022 effort to purchase Twitter — now known as ‘X’ — in a lawsuit that focused on allegations that he had misrepresented impacted stock prices.
Spiro argued that the jury’s conduct raises “a serious issue” about whether Musk received a fair trial — citing what he described as a deliberate and symbolic use of the number 420 — one that he argued has been long associated with Musk — in the verdict form.
META, GOOGLE FACE MASSIVE LIABILITY AS ‘ADDICTED KIDS’ TRIAL CONTINUES IN LA
Musk has repeatedly leaned into internet jokes and references to the “420” number, long associated with marijuana culture. The SEC in 2018 accused Musk of choosing a $420 price point for Tesla shares because it was a reference to pot, which Musk described as “unjustified.”
Spiro noted in the letter that the jury had “emphasized” the $4.20 figure in blue ink and larger font, and described it as a “numerical joke” meant to “send a message” to Musk, in his view, rather than reflect a neutral application of the law.
He also argued that presentation of the damages number, which stood out from other figures on the form, further underscored his concerns that the verdict was influenced by “bias,” rather than by evidence.
The filing from Spiro comes amid a broader push from Musk’s legal team to make the case that their client was denied a fair trial. He also cited alleged widespread juror hostility and what he described as misconduct by opposing counsel, as well as procedural decisions that limited Musk’s ability to present key testimony.
DOGE’S MEDICAID DATA DUMP AIMS TO EXPOSE FRAUD — BUT PRIVACY AND LEGAL HURDLES LOOM
According to Spiro, juror questionnaires revealed “deep” negative views of Musk, and the court was unable to fully screen out biased jurors due to the prevalence of those opinions. He also claimed opposing counsel engaged in “gamesmanship” that sidelined him from a central trial role and introduced prejudicial arguments unrelated to the core claims.
EX-FBI AGENTS INVOLVED IN ARCTIC FROST PROBE SUE FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION
Despite those concerns, jurors in the case rejected the plaintiffs’ primary allegation — that Musk had orchestrated a deliberate scheme to manipulate Twitter’s stock price during his acquisition effort in 2022. Jurors did, however, still find Musk liable on a narrower issue, stemming from statements he made about the status of the deal.
Spiro, for his part, argued the mixed outcome further underscores the problem — suggesting the liability finding was driven less by the evidence and more by a desire to penalize Musk personally.
“The inescapable conclusion,” he wrote, is that the jury used its verdict to express views about Musk rather than to apply the law impartially.
The court has not yet ruled on the claims, though the filing in question could set up further legal challenges to the verdict, including potential efforts to overturn or revisit the outcome.
