New Twist in the Most Exciting Court Drama no one’s Watching

Lawyers in the American Airlines sexual assault case ask for judge’s recusal after fishy filing

The verdict that awarded former flight attendant Kimberly Goesling precisely nothing in her sexual assault trial against American Airlines has been called into question.

Just when you thought it was over, just when you thought Kimberly had shared her most personal moments, fears, traumas and vulnerabilities in open court for nothing, it turns out the May 11 verdict might be utterly invalid.

Last week, her sharp-eyed attorneys discovered that something’s rotten in Denmark.

A few things, actually. It’s a series of Perry Mason moments wrapped in a Grisham novel that the national media is all but ignoring, which is their loss because it continues to have more twists than any TV courtroom drama.

After asking for a new trial last week, attorney Robert Miller of the Dallas-based law firm Miller Bryant LLP then filed a motion for the judge’s recusal in the Kimberly Goesling v. American Airlines sexual assault case.

Here’s how it’s been going down: On May 11, a jury in Texas ruled against Goesling, saying they believed she was sexually assaulted by a chef they hired while on the job, but that her employer, American Airlines, was not responsible for what happened to her despite detailed testimony about the hours leading up to her assault that was both chilling and credible.

On May 18, a full week after the verdict came down, Judge Kimberly Fitzpatrick filed a verdict form that differs from the one previously filed with the court. Miller and his team examined the form and filed a motion that very day asking for the judge’s recusal.

Miller found discrepancies he calls “significant irregularities,” and one in particular is fascinating. Miller’s motion reads:

In particular, this verdict form is marked “COPY,” was not signed by the Court on page six as having been submitted to the jury, it is dated May 18, 2022 (one week after the jury’s verdict), and the verdict certificate signatures are different from the verdict certificate provided to the parties after the Court discharged the jury on May 11, 2022. (Emphasis mine)

Here’s the fascinating part: You can see the image below where I’ve set each jury-signed form side-by-side. Some of the signatures are remarkably different, even to those of us whose signatures vary slightly depending on the day, the position we’re in, even the writing implement we’re using.

I’m side-eyeing juror #4 and #5’s signatures myself, though some have pointed out #7’s signature as well as others. What do you think?

(The signatures on the LEFT are from the form filed by the judge on 5/18/22. The signatures on the RIGHT were filed on the day of the verdict on 5/11/22):

What motives or mistakes are behind the “significant irregularities” in this case is unknown, and Miller will not speculate.

I have questions, though. Are they improprieties based on malicious intent? Laziness? Incompetence? Something else entirely?

Miller has practiced law for over thirty years in Texas, and yet he told me on the day his firm filed the motion for the judge’s recusal, “It’s very strange. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

“Somebody, whether in the court or staff, has to know why,” Miller explained. “We have to find out what’s going on and deal with it. If you look closely, the signatures are different for some reason and we don’t know why. It’s just a very strange situation.”

Other oddities on the later-filed form include:

• It’s 25 pages, while the original is 21

• It’s not signed by the court on page 6 as required; the original is signed.

• In the answers to questions 1 and 2, there are no periods after the word “yes;” in the original, there are periods.

With all of these strange discrepancies, Miller’s motion goes on to say:

Given her filing, it appears Judge Fitzpatrick has some knowledge regarding the reasons there are two different verdict forms, and possibly why the jury’s verdict included a Refused Instruction that Goesling contends affected the outcome of the case.

Accordingly, Judge Fitzpatrick has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding, her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and there is an appearance of bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter.

Miller says next steps look like this: Judge Fitzpatrick can decide to recuse herself, and the administrative judge would assign a new judge. If Judge Fitzpatrick does not recuse herself, there would be a hearing in front of the administrative judge or a judge he designates and it will be decided if she will be recused.

More to come.

Later this week: How Kimberly Goesling is holding up through this extended ordeal.