Scott Williams, swilliams@wolfrivermedia.com
DOUGLAS BURRIS
Seven months after a Shawano County jury decided a dispute over Green Bay Packers season tickets, attorneys in the civil case are still jousting over whether the case was decided fairly.
The presiding judge in the case surrounding Packers ticket broker Douglas Burris will decide soon whether a new trial should be ordered because of something one of the jurors might have said to his colleagues.
Several jurors have testified that juror Roger MacMurray told them during deliberations he has known Burris for 40 years and he regards Burris as a good guy.
The former customers who accused Burris of fraud with their Packers tickets contend that such a remark from a juror tainted deliberations and warrants retrying the case.
Burris’ defense attorney has fired back that any such comment would have been appropriate and that the former customers suing Burris are making a “laughable” attempt to reverse the verdict.
“It is the last desperate attempt of some sore loser plaintiffs to take a grab at the brass ring,” defense attorney John Bartholomew wrote last week in a brief filed with the court.
Shawano-Menominee County Circuit Court Judge William Kussel Jr. has scheduled a July 7 hearing to announce his decision in the new trial request.
The jury of four men and eight women issued a verdict Nov. 11 that cleared Burris of all fraud accusations and ruled in his favor on nearly every count in a complex case that involved nine former Packers season ticket holders.
Attorney Rex Anderegg, representing the former ticket customers, later raised allegations of juror misconduct and requested a new trial based on the belief that MacMurray had inappropriately tainted the jury with his alleged remark about personally regarding Burris as a good guy.
“It is difficult to conceive of extraneous information more prejudicial than that which goes straight to a defendant’s character,” Anderegg wrote in a brief filed last month.
Attorneys and parties on both sides of the case either declined to comment or could not be reached for comment.
The case centers on Burris’ activities as a Packers season ticket broker starting in 1991 when he purchased a Shawano tavern known as Stan & Bud’s, 115 N. Main St. The owners of Stan & Bud’s were longtime Packers boosters, and they owned a cache of 331 tickets that were included in the tavern sale.
Burris was once featured in The New York Times, and testimony in the case indicated that he held the distinction of being the most prolific holder of season tickets in any major sport in the country. After cultivating a network of customers who paid for access to his Packers tickets, he sold the entire stockpile in 2012 for $1.4 million to a Green Bay brokerage known as Event USA.
The customers who sued Burris for fraud, breach of contract and other counts are Shawano residents Arlene Martin, Roger Knueppel, Ronald Malueg and Todd Otto, along with Michael Landwehr, of Brookfield, Daryl Dehnke, of Eau Claire, Mark George Most, of River Falls, Grant George Peterson, of Merrill, and Gerald Vosen, of Merrimac.
During a trial that lasted five days, the plaintiffs testified that they felt Burris had unfairly revoked their season tickets at Lambeau Field. Burris testified that he never promised customers indefinite access to tickets and that he was within his rights to sell the whole bundle.
About a week after the trial ended, allegations of juror misconduct surfaced when plaintiff Todd Otto’s wife overheard juror Patricia Hillis discussing the case in a Bible study group. Anderegg then hired a private investigator to track down other jurors and verify Hillis’ account about what was said during jury deliberations.
Initial indications were that a second juror might have discussed having a personal relationship with Burris, but the issue has since focused squarely on MacMurray.
At a hearing in March, Kussel took sworn testimony from all 12 jurors, several of whom said they had overheard MacMurray, or “Mac,” remark during deliberations either that he knew Burris for a long time or that he thought Burris was a good guy, or both.
MacMurray, a retired postal carrier, denied making any such statement, and Burris testified that he did not know anyone on the jury.
Anderegg argued in his brief that regardless of whether MacMurray and Burris actually knew each other, MacMurray’s alleged remarks constituted juror misconduct and undermined the jury’s ability to decide the case without improper outside influence. He also criticized MacMurray for denying what other jurors had described under oath.
“His outright denial he ever uttered a single word about any knowledge of Burris strongly suggests he had something to hide,” Anderegg wrote. “One thing is certain: the credibility of MacMurray is shot.”
In response, Bartholomew asserted that the plaintiffs are compensating for having a week case by exaggerating the significance of what MacMurray might have said. Bartholomew also wrote that MacMurray could have been offering a casual observation about a Shawano businessman known in the community for having distinguished himself with a successful career, as the case demonstrated.
“Any conclusory comments that ‘Mac’ may have made are in fact supported by the evidence,” the defense attorney wrote. “Any jury could have reasonably and objectively concluded that Doug is a good guy.”