The speed of developments in the legal battle between Michael Irvin and Marriott is picking up steam. On Wednesday Irvin and his attorney, Levi McCathern, held a press conference to discuss the details of the situation from their perspectives.
Since then, District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III has lambasted Marriott for failing to comply with his previous order to turn over materials by Tuesday.
The judge also issued a new order with fewer protections on the content of the materials, and Marriott finally began to release details of the allegations against Michael Irvin.
THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Last week, Judge Mazzant ordered Marriott to turn over relevant surveillance video and other materials by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday.
During the press conference on Wednesday, McCathern revealed that although Marriott’s counsel allowed him to view the surveillance video, they did not allow him to take a copy or make one.
He was not even able to show his client what the video revealed.
Initially, Judge Mazzant’s order allowed Marriott to redact parts of the video and statements. Marriott deemed some information to be too sensitive for public release. Out of concern for the accuser’s safety, they wanted to keep details sealed.
However, Mazzant viewed Marriott’s handling of the situation this week as noncompliance with that order.
He then ordered the information to be released unredacted and said that Irvin and McCathern may share details with the public.
Regarding the surveillance video, McCathern says, “I think people need to see the video and judge it for themselves.” However, according to reports, the meat of the allegations against Michael Irvin are related to his words, not his actions.
MARRIOTT’S MOTION
In a motion filed this week, following Michael Irvin’s Tuesday morning press conference, Marriott alleged, “Irvin’s counsel provided a self-serving, inaccurate summary of the video footage Marriott produced, including his claim that the footage proves Irvin did nothing wrong and then turned the microphone over to Irvin to make racially charged statements.”
Then, in the motion, they outlined their own interpretation of the contents of the surveillance video.
McCathern’s account of the video suggested that the interaction between Michael Irvin and his accuser was void of any inappropriate actions. Marriott’s description, however, told a much different story.
Marriott’s attorneys described Irvin as being “visibly intoxicated” when he approached the accuser, shook her hand, and asked if she was a football fan.
Their account of the events continued, “Irvin also reached out and touched the Victim’s arm during this conversation without her consent, causing her to step back, becoming visibly uncomfortable. Irvin then asked the Victim whether she knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].'”
In Mariott’s 28-page motion, they only identified the accuser as “victim.”
They claimed that Irvin touched the victim’s arm without consent, she responded by backing away, and he moved in closer.
After that, according to Marriott’s motion, Irvin ended the conversation when he noticed hotel security watching the interaction.
“Seeing that other hotel employees were in the area and wanting the interaction to end, the Victim returned Irvin’s handshake,” Marriott’s counsel wrote.
“Irvin then stated that he would come back to find her sometime that week when she was working.”
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Assuming Marriott complied with the court’s order and McCathern’s sentiments were genuine, the surveillance video in question will be released soon.
The release of the video will be imperative in determining the public’s perception of this entire situation.
The account by Irvin’s attorney differs greatly from the account of Kendall Hayden, Marriott’s representation.
Since Irvin himself did not entirely remember the encounter, Judge Mazzant presumably has not seen the video, and the public has not seen it, viewing the surveillance footage may provide much-needed clarity for those involved with the case as well as those following it.
There’s also the question of whether or not the consequences faced by Michael Irvin are warranted based on his actions and statements.
The interpretation of Irvin’s alleged statements, especially the notion of him “finding” the employee sometime that week might turn out to be vital to the ultimate ruling on this case.
If she is lying and just trying to get a bunch of money out of a retired professional athlete then I hope she gets prosecuted for that! BUT if Michael is lying and is guilty of doing what she said he did I hope that he has to pay dearly!!
Sounds like he was drunk and might have propositioned a hotel staffer. That simple.
But hard for her to prove without some kind of corroboration, like if there was audio from the vid or a eye/ear witness.
Otherwise, it’s a she said, he said.
Irvin ,older man aging rough, in NFL sports arena so he might be goofy, might have a harder time appealing to a younger woman. She mad she wanted young players but all ignored her. Reported this to avoid added contact with gross looking older man. No reason to cancel his NFL job.
While I currently have no opinion on guilt/innocence, it would like to point out that it was not the employee who filed this civil suit. That said, if a jury rules against Irvin, I have little doubt she will be seeking compensation afterwards. If there is no audio, Irvin didn’t help himself by saying he doesn’t remember his interaction with her as it be a focal point by the defense.
Good point about Irwin saying he doesn’t remember. He probably said that at first to muddy the water. It may backfire now.
K
This is what I thought happened from the beginning , it is sad to say that .. I have dealt with Irvin b4 in Las Vegas at Chertahs a topless club he was asked to leave because of some of the same things
Unfortunately for you, anecdotal evidence is not often very persuasive to the public.
Can Michael Irvin beat Marriott Hotel in his blockbuster lawsuit? #MichaelIrvin #NFL #DallasCowboys https://youtu.be/l3GdSjKoAHY
Guess we will have to see the video. And will the audio be clear? If the audio isn’t clear then it’s just pure speculation.
I have to assume there is no audio for two reasons: It is security camera footage and the verbiage from Marriott provided in the article comes across to me as allegations. I suspect that without audio, the actions in video likely appear to show nothing improper taking place and is the reason Marriott did not want the public to view it because IF the accusations are accurate, the video w/o audio won’t substantiate the employee’s claims. It also doesn’t help Marriott for deciding the plaintiff could not view the footage. This case is a he said/she said, and even if the employee is being truthful, when the public sees the video w/o the benefit of the audio, he majority of public support will be for Irvin. IF the case goes to a jury, the one disadvantage for Irvin is that he publicly claimed to not recall the interaction making it difficult for him to defend himself against the employee’s testimony regarding what he said. If the defense produces an additional witness(es) to back-up the employee’s testimony regarding what was said, it’s going to be who comes across as more genuine and believable on the stand. I am not very familiar with Irvin nor the employee, but if any evidence is produced to indicate this is a repeated pattern of behavior for EITHER the plaintiff or respondent, it will likely have the most impact on the jurors.
If there is no audio and the footage accurately reflects what is stated in the article, I can see several possibilities that might prompt a jury to reach a verdict not in Irvin’s favor. However, I would always support declaring an individual to be innocent of a criminal allegation anytime reasonable doubt exists. That said, this is a civil suit and has a much lower threshold. All that one side has to show is that one side’s version is a little more likely to have occured than the other side’s version. Still, it is all speculation at this point because we don’t even have the benefit of a comparison between he said/she said testimony under oath. Neither the plaintiff nor the respondent are under an obligation to be truthful with the media.
You need an editor. The judge did not order them to overturn the evidence, but to turn over the evidence.
The judge did “overturn” his own prior ruling that Marriott could provide redacted footage and not be released to the public, but I agree that it was a very poor choice of words and inaccurate “legalese” that should have been caught by the editor.
This seems like so many other instances concerning a prominent Black Celebrity and a “Nobody ” White Trash Female trying to squeeze an out of court settlement from one of these guys. If you notice, this sort of crap is never directed towards a White Celebrity or Athlete! NEVER!!!! When will we we learn that these ordinary, broke, fringe society White Women and Men are just out there in the general public hunting unsuspecting prominent Black men for financial gain? They don’t accuse Black Women, White Women, and DEFINITELY NOT WHITE MEN!!! When will Black Guys UNDERSTAND WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON OUT THERE?????