Churchill wins lawsuit against CU

DENVER - Former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill said justice was delivered after he won his case against the school, but was only awarded $1 in damages by the jury.

The jury ruled in Churchill's favor, deciding that when he was fired in 2007 it was because a majority of CU's Regents were responding to political pressure stemming from outrage over an essay he wrote after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In the essay, he compared Sept. 11 victims inside the World Trade Center towers to an infamous Nazi.

CU had maintained the ethnic studies professor was dismissed for plagiarism and academic misconduct.

"What was asked for and what was delivered was justice. The fraud of the university's campaign and collaboration with private right-wing interest... which has transpired over the past four years has been exposed for what it is," Churchill said outside the courtroom.

Churchill's attorney, David Lane, brushed off suggestions that the $1 damage award represented a sort of split decision.

"This case is not about the money. It has never been about the money. The jury did justice," Lane said. "This is a great victory for the First Amendment and academic freedom."

The jury also ruled Churchill would not have been fired over the plagiarism and academic misconduct allegations alone.

If the verdict stands, CU will have to pay Churchill's legal fees and Lane says that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The judge will now decide whether Churchill will return and begin teaching at CU again.

"Since it's been been found by a jury that I was wrongly fired and it was a politically motivated firing," said Churchill. "Reinstatement would follow rather, nicely wouldn't you say?"

Lane says if CU opposes, there will be a hearing.

CU says it will oppose his return to the classroom, but wouldn't provide specifics.

Lane says the judge has no choice but to let Churchill teach again at CU. Lane says if Churchill is reinstated and CU doesn't give him back something equivalent to his old job, that would be grounds for another lawsuit.

"Churchill walks away the big winner," 9NEWS Legal Analyst Scott Robinson said. "The probability of reinstatement is great, and from that point on, the University of Colorado has to treat Ward Churchill with kid gloves."

CU told 9NEWS it stands behind how it handled the case and it would do the same if it were tomorrow.

"We believe we did the right thing in the right way for the right reasons and we would act the same way again. We have processes in place that we've heard about for the past four weeks and we believe those processes are sound," CU spokesman Ken McConnellogue said outside the courtroom.

A CU spokesperson was asked if the university was happy with the job done with its in-house council, Patrick O'Rourke and whether he had been outmatched by Lane. The university said it was satisfied with O'Rourke's performance.

The jury announced it had reached a verdict just before 4 p.m. It was read around 4:20 p.m.

The jury began its deliberations on Wednesday after hearing the closing arguments from both sides. The jury paused that afternoon and reconvened Thursday to continue deliberating.

On Thursday afternoon, the jury asked several questions of the judge, one was whether zero dollars was an option for damages in the case.

Judge Larry Naves, in a written response, told the jury it was not, but indicated a single dollar could constitute a minimal damage award.

That is what they eventually awarded Churchill.

Five of the six jurors declined to speak about the trial publicly.

Juror Bethany Newill said the verdict came after "a lot of debating."

Newill said if it were her choice, she would give Churchill his former job, but added, "I don't know why he'd want it."

As for the $1 damage award, Newell said jurors simply listened to Churchill and his attorney.

"They made a strong point they didn't want any money from it and so we just went with that so we just took them on their word for it," Newell said.

Newell came away from the trial with a favorable impression of Churchill.

"I had personally, believe it or not, never heard of him before this trial, that's probably why I was a juror," Newell said. "I was kind of impressed with him a little bit."

One of those who wanted Churchill fired in response to the essay was then-Gov. Bill Owens.

Betsy Hoffman, who was president of the university at the time, had testified that Owens pressured her to fire Churchill and said he would "unleash my plan" when she told him she couldn't.

In his testimony, Owens denied threatening the university.

"I'm very pleased. While I don't think the university is guilty of violating his rights, the $1 judgment was clearly a victory for the university and I'm pleased at the outcome," Owens told 9NEWS on Thursday.

University officials concluded that Churchill couldn't be fired over the essay because of his First Amendment rights, but they launched an investigation of his academic research.

That investigation, which didn't include the Sept. 11 essay, concluded he had plagiarized, fabricated evidence and committed other misconduct.

Churchill testified last week that he didn't mean his comments to be hurtful to Sept. 11 victims. He said he was arguing that "if you make it a practice of killing other people's babies for personal gain ... eventually they're going to give you a taste of the same thing."