Neither John Strand nor Cass County will collect the damages they said they were due after a jury ruled against both parties Friday.
The verdict, following five days of testimony, declared Strand not responsible for the $39,000 in costs the county claimed his 2003 lawsuit caused by delaying demolition of the old jail and sheriff's residence.
The nine jurors also ruled the county's $39,000 counterclaim was not an abuse of process or a violation of Strand's First Amendment right to access the courts.
Neither side appeared elated after the verdict, but each found their own positives.
"I believe the message today ... is there's still room for people to speak out without fear of retaliation," Strand said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Then a reporter asked him about his legal fees, which he had estimated at more than $100,000 weeks before the trial.
"It could be worse," Strand said.
Todd Haggart, an attorney for Vogel Law Firm who co-represented the county, viewed the verdict as "mostly in favor of us," considering Strand could have received much more.
"I think it's a fair result," Haggart said.
Jurors declined to comment after issuing their verdict. They reached a decision after deliberating for about 31/2 hours.
When he filed his initial lawsuit, Strand only wanted Cass County to follow the law, but instead he was treated like a fly on the wall, his lawyer said.
John Goff, one of two attorneys representing the Fargo resident, said county officials weren't individually out to attack Strand. Collectively, though, their actions became more menacing, he said.
"They treated John with disdain and arrogance," Goff said in closing arguments.
ADVERTISEMENT
County officials felt otherwise. Strand had every opportunity to make known his thoughts before demolition of the old jail and sheriff's residence, and now he's exaggerating the fallout from his activism, Haggart told jurors.
A decision for Strand, who contended the two-year-long case pained him physically and altered his outlook on activism, could have led to a judgment of untold thousands against the county.
Judge Mikal Simonson must still decide another major contention of the trial - the focus of Strand's initial lawsuit. Simonson will determine whether the county followed or flaunted the law with its demolition of the two old buildings.
No money is at stake with the ruling. Instead, it will legitimize or reject the arguments Strand made in his April 2003 lawsuit, which halted demolition for six working days.
In closing arguments Friday, Haggart questioned the route Strand took to the lawsuit. Initially, Strand said the county couldn't raze the buildings because the State Historical Society hadn't consented.
But when Strand realized consent was on its way, he switched arguments to save the buildings, Haggart said.
"Well, John Strand is a persistent man, among other good traits," Haggart said.
The new argument relied on the contention that the demolition was part of a more expensive construction project. If it was - and county officials maintain it wasn't - the whole enterprise required a public vote. That is the question Simonson will answer.
ADVERTISEMENT
Strand called Friday's verdict a principled victory and one that he couldn't afford to lose. Still, he characterized the entire experience as a disappointment.
"We never should have been here," he said.
When asked if he'd do it all again, he paused about five seconds, gazing at the floor.
"No," he said. "Probably not."
Readers can reach Forum reporter Dave Forster at (701) 241-5538
