The court transcripts for June 2, 2025 through June 16, 2025 from the Eric Coomer v Mike Lindell trial have been donated to the Mike Lindell Legal Defense Fund by the Michigan Grassroots Alliance.
NOTE: Day 1 transcript is not available as it includes names of jurors.
Potential Grounds for Appeal of $2.4M in damages
Evidentiary Rulings Limiting Defense Evidence
Admissibility of Video Evidence: Judge Wang closely scrutinized, limited, or excluded portions of defense video evidence including documentaries (“Kill Chain,” “Absolute Proof,” etc.). The Court conducted a detailed Federal Rule 403 analysis (balancing probative value versus prejudicial effect and trial efficiency), ultimately denying the defense’s request to play extended or complete versions, limiting them to brief, court-reviewed excerpts. Defense objected, arguing these limitations curtailed their ability to show Lindell’s genuine state of mind and impeach plaintiff witnesses with allegedly inconsistent statements from prior media appearances. Judge Wang required foundation be laid and previewed all clips outside the jury’s presence, sustaining objections to irrelevant or hearsay material not specifically referencing Dr. Coomer or Dominion.
Exclusion and Limitation of Cross-Examination and Use of Documents: The judge restricted the use of certain employment and settlement documents related to Dr. Coomer and limited cross-examination concerning third-party statements, citing relevancy, prejudice, and completeness. Defense sought to use certain public posts or documents for impeachment; the Court, referencing both discovery noncompliance and protective orders from other litigation, excluded some documents altogether and limited use of others to impeachment only (not for truth).
Restricting Live Testimony of Witnesses
Binding Defense to Deposition Designations: Defense moved to call Max McGuire live, despite a joint pretrial notice stating he would appear by video deposition. Plaintiffs objected, citing procedural unfairness and reliance interests. Judge Wang bound both parties to their prior representations, compelling presentation by video only and prohibiting the defense from shifting to live testimony, as allowed under Rules 32 and 611. Defense objected this limited effective examination.
Limits and Instructions on Expert and Lay Testimony
Expert Testimony and State of Mind Evidence: The Court limited the questioning of lay witnesses (including Joe Oltmann) and restricted non-designated experts from testifying about general election fraud, focusing strictly on relevance to Dr. Coomer and Dominion. Defense repeatedly objected that this curtailed their ability to explain Lindell’s beliefs and provide a full picture of the context. Judge Wang allowed some latitude for foundational topics but repeatedly sustained objections to opinion testimony crossing the line into improper expert evidence.
Jury Instruction and Legal Standards Rulings
Charge Conference Decisions: Judge Wang ruled on competing proposals regarding instructions on “actual malice,” “defamation per se,” and allowed/emphasized certain limiting instructions. She declined to give more expansive defense-requested instructions on circumstantial evidence of state of mind or lesser standards of proof, instead adopting a streamlined set favoring the plaintiff’s legal theories. Defense objections to these decisions were expressly preserved.
Instruction on Adverse Inference (5th Amendment): The Court gave a general negative inference instruction regarding a witness (Tina Peters) invoking the Fifth Amendment, but refused defense requests for a more specific or party-directed instruction, which the defense objected to as unfairly prejudicial.
Discovery and Procedural Sanctions Affecting Evidence
Discovery Timing and Exclusion: Judge Wang precluded use of some late-produced documents and testimony because of untimely disclosure, applying district and Tenth Circuit standards (including Woodworkers factors). Defense’s argument that exclusion for “harmless error” unfairly prejudiced the presentation of their case was overruled.
Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law
Defense moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 on several grounds (immunity for Frankspeech under CDA §230, lack of evidence of conspiracy, insufficient showing of damages, and actual malice). The Court denied these motions, finding sufficient evidence existed for jury determination and that legal arguments did not mandate relief as a matter of law.