Navy veteran's aggressive pursuit by CNN reporter leads to brutal questions during defamation trial

In the high-stakes defamation trial against CNN, the jurors reserved their most challenging questions for the reporter during her pursuit of U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young, the plaintiff in the case.

CNN accused Young of profiting off desperate people trying to flee Afghanistan after the Biden administration's military withdrawal, implying he was involved in "black market" dealings and damaging his professional reputation.

Katie Bo Lillis, who worked with Marquardt on the story, was grilled about her actions in trying to persuade Young to speak with CNN.

Lillis heard the questions submitted by the jurors, which were read aloud by Judge William Henry.

Are Americans obligated to speak to you or CNN?

"Lillis replied, "No one is obligated to speak to us; it's their free decision whether to engage or not.""

"To what extent must someone refrain from speaking to you in order not to communicate with you?" the judge posed the next question.

"That's a really good question," Lillis amusingly reacted.

Lillis stated that she felt a responsibility to both the individuals involved in the story and the American public, particularly when writing about government activities.

"Lillis stated that in this situation, there was someone who might be profiting off of the misery of others in the aftermath of a catastrophic tragedy in Afghanistan. She felt that her top priority was to continue to push for answers from Mr. Young, rather than backing away from the search for answers. Lillis was thinking about the Afghans trying to escape the country and the many service members and former agency officers, including CIA officers and officers she knew personally, who were affected by this tragedy."

Lillis replied to the question "When do you accept someone not wishing to speak or comment?" by stating that it depends on the context and that she has a higher priority to investigate Young's activities.

Lillis emphasized that individuals have the right not to speak with her, but she noted that Young initially contacted her as a potential client after receiving a notification that Lillis viewed his LinkedIn profile.

Lillis informed the jurors that he could have stopped answering any of her questions, disengaged completely, but he did not do any of those things. Instead, he continued to communicate with her.

Lillis had an off-the-record conversation with Young, who requested anonymity in any report, during which she informed him that discussing the matter privately would allow him to comprehend the project's details and present his case for excluding his name from the proceedings.

"Can you explain how your approach is different from innocent until proven guilty?"

"Lillis responded, "We're not a court of law, and the standards for determining whether someone's conduct is newsworthy are not based on legality. In this case, it's about whether it's appropriate to expose that someone is profiting off of the misery of Afghans. We had enough corroboration in the form of text messages to justify our questions, but if a stronger case were made, we would have backed away. Does that answer your question?""

"It wasn't answered," Judge Henry chuckled before moving on to the next question, "Can you understand, given this fresh perspective, that your approach could scare someone?" He clarified that it was a follow-up to the previous question.

Lillis acknowledged that someone might be scared of being approached by a reporter, but rejected the idea in this scenario because Young was promoting his own services on LinkedIn and he initiated contact with her.

Another juror questioned if it is someone's duty to speak with Lillis if they believe vulnerable individuals are being exploited. Lillis reaffirmed that no one is obligated to engage in conversation with her.

One juror posed the question, "Do individuals have the right to remain unnamed in news reports?" which left the CNN journalist perplexed.

Lillis admitted she was grappling with the word "correct."

"Lillis stated that it is the duty of news organizations and journalists, including herself, to exercise caution when deciding whether to expose conduct and name individuals involved, and to determine whether it is in the public interest to reveal such information. In this particular case, Lillis strongly believes that the bar has been met."

Lillis stated that a simple "I can't help" response would be appropriate when disengaging from clients who cannot afford to hire Young, as she found his actions to be harsh.

On Thursday, the trial will resume and will be live-streamed on Planet Chronicle Digital.