Freelance writer Dominic Patten is a Deadline contributor
2ND UPDATE, 3 PM: Closing statements are over and the jury has left the court to begin deliberations. As a civil trial, the 12-person jury — 9 women and 3 men — does not have to be unanimous in its verdict, but at least nine must agree.
Wrapping closing statements earlier in the afternoon, Levin went for ABC’s bottom line in the wrongful termination trial: “The evidence does not show that Ms. Sheridan made a complaint about an unsafe work environment.” During his rebuttal, plaintiff’s attorney Mark Baute went after Marc Cherry, whom he called “vindictive”. He said Cherry “was out of control,” over objections from Levin, adding, “the company,” to protect Cherry and the success of the series, “orchestrated a story.” Sheridan “got retaliated against and clipped.”
UPDATE, 12:27 PM: Defense attorney Adam Levin said during his closing statement that “the decision to kill off Edie was made long before the Sept. 24, 2008 incident”. “Mr. Baute has told you a complicated story of conspiracy,” Levin said, referring to the closing argument by Nicollette Sheridan’s lawyer. “What is the truth is much more simple.”
Calling it “desperate” to allege that “10 good citizens of California” would concoct a fake story to get rid of Sheridan’s character after the actress complained about Marc Cherry allegedly hitting her in the head, Levin took a much more professorial tone that the passionate Baute earlier in the morning. Employing props like on-screen transcripts, a giant timeline board, Post-It notes and Housewives’ writers’ story index cards (like the unfortunately worded “Steve drinks OJ”), Levin attempted to show the jury how the decision was made to kill off Sheridan’s character and how then-ABC Studios president Mark Pedowitz and then-ABC Entertainment president Steve McPherson approved the plan four months before the on-set head-hitting altercation.
Levin said allegations of the “fabricating of evidence and backdating of events” by the other side’s lawyers do not stand up to the testimony of Cherry, Pedowitz and McPherson. They testified that they believed “the Edie character had run its course” and “that Edie would die in Season 5.”
Levin made a district point of reminding the jurors the kind of money Sheridan was paid for work she did and didn’t do. The lawyer noted that Sheridan, who was fired on February 10, 2009, was paid more than $875,000 for the remaining five episodes of Desperate Housewives after she left “even though she only worked for a few minutes.” Sheridan briefly returned to the series to appear as a ghost for less than an on-air minute.
Levin’s closing statement, followed by rebuttal from the Plaintiff’s side, continues at 1:30 PM.
PREVIOUS, 11:25 AM: Marc Cherry is a “liar” and “Touchstone is not particularly concerned if a woman gets hit by a man who runs a billion dollar show,” Nicollette Sheridan’s lawyer Mark Baute said during his closing statement today in the actress’ $6 million wrongful termination civil suit. Baute said ABC did nothing about the alleged September 24, 2008 head-hitting incident between Cherry and Sheridan on the Desperate Housewives set until an article about it appeared in the Nation Enquirer the next month. It’s an altercation Baute contends led to Sheridan’s departure from the show. The defense’s contention that Cherry decided to kill off Sheridan’s Edie Britt character in May 2008 “is a story, it is not the truth,” the lawyer said. Citing a lack of documents, supposed secrecy, compromised witnesses and an ABC human resources investigation he called a “whitewash,” Baute said “their story doesn’t hold water, there was no decision.”
Baute told the jury he believed the revelation that actor James Denton’s longtime Housewives character would suddenly be killed off the show this past Sunday “goes to show you how far they’re willing to go to manage the story.” The Plaintiff contends major characters are not killed off series unless it is due to personal circumstances — like Charlie Sheen’s meltdown that saw him leave Two And A Half Men last year — or the series is about to end.
The two-week-long trial against ABC and ABC Studios (formerly Touchstone) will hear the defense’s closing statement from lawyer Adam Levin soon.



because you can’t make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the ’64 buick skylark
Are you suggesting Marisa Tomei’s Oscar was merely a payoff from Twentieth Century Fox for Jonathan Lynn’s having smacked her during the trial sequence? ‘Cause I think we can get Pesci to refute that…
reference WIN.
The above comment is dead-on-balls accurate.
You beat me to it. Well done.
“The Plaintiff contends major characters are not killed off series unless it is due to personal circumstances”
Clearly this lawyer doesn’t watch ANY Joss Whedon properties.
Or Game of Thrones. Or Deadwood. Or the Sopranos. Or Dexter. Or Weeds…..Or….
Or THE WALKING DEAD (the memory still hurts)
Or Dallas. Poor Jack Scalia.
The jury will award Nicolette her 4.2 million. There are too many problems with the story told by Cherry and ABC and the jury will be able to see through their false testimony very quickly. They won’t deliberate for more than two hours and Reinhart’s testimony has already given Nicolette the victory she deserves. I will be very surprised if the jury votes against her.
Yeah, this is not a criminal trial. “More likely than not,” instead “Beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. Sheridan should win but lets see if they appeal and drag this on even longer. Hope she saves that $4.2 because her career is toast. Then again, it has been toast since she was fired.
She only needs 9 votes. The jury is 9 women and 3 men. It’ll all ride on how much they think she’s just being bitchy and vindictive.
There is one thing that does not make sense to me. Cherry and others have said Nicollette was NOT a main character on the show, then why do you have the get the president of ABC’s “ok” to kill her off? Does ABC micro-manage all of thier shows?
And if she wasn’t a main character then why was she on the cover of season 2, 3, 4 and 5 DVD box-sets, standing side by side with the other 4 housewives (and no one else)?
And if her character had really run its course, then why did they (painfully and unsuccessfully) try to turn Dana Delany’s character into Edie Britt following Sheridan’s departure?
Liars.
This is all fake, after the fact testimony to cover their asses.
She was a major part of the show. She got smacked in the head by Cherry. ABC and Cherry’s team got together and created lies to act out on the witness stand.
Cherry is not a nice person. He’s vindictive and cruel.
Not sure anyone will get caught.
What’s the deal with the E-mail guy’s computer?
The former NBC exec who testified that comedies do not kill of characters does not know what he is talking about. What about Gil Bellows character in Ally McBeal? Killed off in season 3 – and he was far more necessary to the series than Sheridan ever was to Desp Housewives.
No wonder NBC has been in the dumper for years with morons like that.
I thought she should have been killed off much earlier. An annoying, trite character, no disrespect to Ms. Sheridan who was fab in Noises Off.
Thank you for not bothering to read the article or offer any opinion at all regarding the lawsuit. Your critique of the Edie character is duly noted, however.
Ok I have read a few articles and I dont understand what the big deal is. The creator wanted her off the show and that should be the end of it…..Unless I’m missing something if someone would like to help me fill in the rest
Sheridan won this case when the jury was picked she got lucky that it’s 9 women and 3 men since a 9 to 3 verdict is enough to win a trial like this. She will definitely get all the women and possibly one of the men or maybe all the men. The women don’t like Cherry he’s obnoxious and Nicolette is a sympathetic victim that’s how they see her after watching her testify. They will also realize she was hit on her head and even though the judge threw out that part of the case it’s still in the jury’s thoughts and they will take it into consideration and rule in her favor.
Thanks for the generalization that women will side with her out of sympathy, instead of using a process of critical thinking and weighing the clout of the testimony of the case.
thank you for pointing out the sexism in these comments
I honestly do not understand the basis for Ms. Sheridan’s wrongful termination case. Her contract only required her to be paid for that season (which she was, including episodes filmed after her character’s death). The creators “own” her character and can do anything they want with it, including rendering the character mute, paralyzed, or dead…..as long as they honor the actor’s contract. I don’t understand her case.
I did understand the battery case against Mr. Cherry. But that part of the case was thrown out.
Rob R., it is my understanding that it is illegal to fire someone in retaliation for them complaining about and/or not complying with what they perceive/experience/allege to be an illegal, inappropriate and otherwise wrong act in the workplace — regardless of the terms of said employee’s contract (or lack thereof). Perhaps a legal expert can express this more precisely, but this is what I’ve gathered from this and somewhat similar cases (see Holly Hallstrom v. Bob Barker/”The Price is Right,” which resulted in her receiving a multi-million-dollar settlement ten years after she was fired/let go as a “Barker’s Beauty” in 1995.)
It all comes down to the timing. She contends they decided to kill off her character after the alleged “bitch slap” incident (not legal). He contends the decision was made and approved four months earlier (legal).
basically she’s alleging that they fired her for being difficult.
and not because it was a creative decision.
but they could have fired her either way and she was being difficult.
now, cherry may be a total control freak douche and she may have had reasons for being difficult, like him slapping her upside her head or harrassment or whatever, but abc sided with him against her. because it was easier to lose her than to replace him. so…is that justified? perhaps then she wins…wrongful termination. on the flip side, even if he’s a douche to work for, other people work with him just fine and manage to keep it professional. so its partially her fault, she could have demonstrated greater maturity in handling issues that came up while she was working there. so we will see. but in her defense, she seems like the kind of person that people will give a hard time to, so she might not be able to help that. opinionated, brassy, stubborn, intelligent and beautiful. none of those are bad things, they are great traits, but some men especially cannot handle women with those character traits. just my opinion based on life experience and limited information.
Justin, Yes they do.
Sheridan commented years ago while interviewed that she felt Cherry had some misplaced hostiliy towards her, as if his Edie character and Nicolette were actually the same. I really hope she wins this.
It feels like half the comments here are Sheridan’s PR team. The jury’s only decision is if the decision was made before or after her interaction with Cherry. Her prominence on the show really doesn’t matter since major characters are killed off on shows all the time. Whether Cherry liked her or not, her character was never that likeable and the show didn’t miss a beat when she left, and legally, that doesn’t matter either. It’s only about when the decision was made.
The one commenting as “Jemma” is wrong. The show did miss a beat when the Edie character was written out. The show’s ratings continued their steep, steady decline. If Cherry were steering the Titanic, it would have sunk much sooner and much faster.