Freelance writer Dominic Patten is a Deadline contributor
UPDATE 4:50 PM: “The judge asked us to come down and speak to the other side,” defense attorney Adam Levin said outside Judge Bendix’s courtroom, “and we did so and absolutely nothing has changed.” Levin said there is no settlement and the case will return to the jury on Monday. Nicollette Sheridan and her lawyer Mark Baute emerged from the judge’s courtroom. Uncharacteristically, the usually media friendly Baute said “No comment.” A few moments later, outside the courtroom, Baute added, “We believe it is 8 to 4 in our favor.” The holdup, he said is that “the foreman is against us.”
Without a settlement, the case continues Monday with the deadlocked jury.
PREVIOUSLY: The jury said it is “hopelessly deadlocked.” They are split 8-4 and Judge Elizabeth Allen White told them just now to take the weekend to think about it and come back Monday. If they can’t come to a verdict, she told them, she’ll have to declare a mistrial. “I know how frustrating this must be,” Judge White said.
PREVIOUSLY: Nicollette Sheridan and ABC may be trying to settle in the actress’ wrongful termination suit against Desperate Housewives producer Marc Cherry and the network. A source close to the case told Deadline that if the 12-person jury could not come to a verdict by 1:30 this afternoon, lawyers Mark Baute for the plaintiff and Adam Levin for the defense, and their teams, will meet in front of judge Helen Bendix. And they’re gathering in Bendix’s courtroom now. Any discussions between the lawyers will happen behind closed doors in Judge Bendix’s chambers.
The jury continued its second day of deliberations today, with no verdict reached so far. Deliberations ended Thursday afternoon when the jury informed trial judge Elizabeth Allen White that it was “having difficulty reaching a verdict.”



HE HIT HER!!!! oops already said that last week…oh well… HE STILL HIT HER!!!
By all accounts he was giving her screen direction. Come on, if he struck her, hurt her, violently abused her don’t you think the crew would have reacted? He touched her head with his hand simulating the motion of a strike. Anyone would be crazy out of there minds to think that she was subject to abuse. So say “he hit her” all day every day and you sound like a crazy person all day every day.
Not if they were afraid of reprimands or think it’s alright to hit a woman. You are either naive or neanderthal.
your obviously new in this town
I’m surprised. With all the “evidence” that ABC presented to the jury, I would have thought they would win this trial easily.
We demand our own TV series for ABC but we don’t want Marc Cherry to be the showrunner. Give us what we want a hit show starring the 12 of us with nobody ever getting killed off and we’ll reach a verdict. Sincerely,
The Breakfast Club aka
I think the jury got confused when the battery case was dropped. Seems like they failed to realize that the suit is based on her being fired because of the events that led to the battery charge rather than the validity of the battery charge itself.
Whichever way they’re leaning, I hope one of the four will change position. It’s been a big enough waste of tax dollars already.
Line up all twelve jurors and have the judge slap them upside the head.
Vale, what you’re saying is no validity = no case in the first place and overaggressive attorneys have made matters worse for the jury by putting them in the position of having to make that decision on their own? Are they rendering a verdict on the validity of the case? Or on damages (with the tap on the head invalidated in front of them as root cause to deduce damages) for termination that was in actuality contractually legal?
Mistrial begats or prompts settlement…on the basis of legal events? (This would be ABC’s point with the head hit dismissed as part of the wrongful termination suit – although there is reference-able documentation regarding the incident.
(Provided one believes ABC’s description of discussions of the fate of the character occurring basically immediately when hiatus commenced. The question then becomes : did ABC have a legal reason to inform Nicollette Sheridan about those discussions and what they were potentially planning for the Edie character; moral/ethical aside…this would become a highly nuanced boilerplate pitched battle between both sides of the aisle.)
Why would ABC make a 2 year deal with her the same month they “decided” to kill off her character? Doesn’t wash.
Because the women had favored nations contracts and just maybe they wanted to have the option of keep her. When actors hold productions hostage they should be fired. Crew and productions have paid the price for diva shenanigans for e-v-e-r. Show up, know your lines, don’t make life hell for everyone around you, come to set when your called AND TREAT PEOPLE WITH RESPECT. Well actually if you do that then the rest of the diva cast will hate you and call you an ass-kisser.
I shouldn’t limit it to actors. Everyone, producers, directors, D.P.’s everyone should work with respect to the entire process.
They signed her because they wanted to use her for the majority of the coming season and benefit from the event value in killing off her character. Her role that season was huge, but mainly because it was heading toward her husband being a psycho killer. WIthout signing her, they would have had to begin the season without her character at all.
Settle the damn thing and pay her the policy limit of ABC’s insurance policy and be done with it.
a mistrial will give her a chance to pursue the email about erasing hard drives. is that why they are considering settling…or why wouldnt abc have already settled and not let cherry and abc look like woman beaters.
I’ve never been on a TV set, but from what I read it certainly doesn’t sound like anyone hit anyone. He was giving her stage direction. Plus they have had like 25 people testify that her character was killed before anything happened on set.
This whole thing smells of desperation.
Bingo
Regardless if it’s a mistrial, Marc cherry is the big loser here. Cherry obviously hates women, abuses women, and could do great physical harm to one one day unless he is stopped. I am quite certain the jury is leaning toward Sheridan 8-4 and hopefully one of the 4 idiots who like Cherry will come around to keep this from escalating into an O.J. Simpson or Scott Peterson type case.
Really, O.J., Scott Peterson. Stage direction!!! If he hates women he sure has done a great job of making a bunch of them quite wealthy.
He hates women??? Which is why he writes a show about four women that goes eight years, then follows that up with another show about women??? Agent: woman. Producing partner: woman. I’ve never seen Marc be anything but a total gentleman with every woman he’s met. Whether he was pissed at this one woman or not, I don’t know, but he clearly cares about most women he encounters and reveres a great many.
Making a blanketed asinine statement like “Marc Cherry hates women” is the same as me saying you’re brainless. Nicolette Sheridan is a pain in the ass and that’s a compliment. I’m sure she and Cherry had a complicated relationship most likely exacerbated by the fact that they are both DIVAs. Sheridan got fully paid out of her contract and if she was a little bit nicer, Cherry would have probably kept her on for a couple of more seasons. That said, just pay her something and be done with it. This whole thing is just embarrassing for everyone involved.
There will be a mistrial if the foreman is part of the 4 who favor ABC then there’s no way the other 8 will change the foreman’s mind, he or she has to stick to their opinion because the other jurors decided early on that he or she would be the leader and now they have to lead. ABC will settle next week after the mistrial they won’t want to pay Levin again to go back for another trial. They should have offered Sheridan two million to drop her suit before this ever got to court, now they will do just that.
Why did they make a two year deal? For wiggle room about the character’s fate most especially in a soap opera like this where abrupt endings for characters are a recurring theme. Ratings are watched like a child’s temperature today – minute to minute – hence all of Cherry’s consultation with ABC.
Your point however C’mom speaks to Sheridan’s point.
If she hadn’t been voluble about the incident…would they have decided to raze the wiggle room? On the one hand. I would imagine the contract guarantees her payment regardless of what happens to the character and yet permits ABC to do what they wish…on the other hand.
Unless it was a lousy contract…which happens often if not regularly in television.
Bottom line…he still struck her no matter how lightly he did so, he still hit her and she should be awarded the decision BUT not to be paid a huge lump-sum of money in the process. I still think she gets the 9 necessary votes for a victory on Monday or for sure Tuesday. Last thing either wants is a mistrial, especially Sheridan.
Bottom line: the case isn’t determining whether he hit her or not, so no, she shouldn’t be awarded the decision based on that.
I still believe they will come to a decision by Tuesday at the very latest and rule in her favor but without the 9 necessary votes to make it official, this thing will drag on and unfortunately for Sheridan, a mistrial would have to be declared.
How does the defense attorney get away with publicly criticizing a juror and claiming to know how that person is voting, all while the jury is still deliberating?