Drama unfolded in a Florida courtroom during the civil trial between CNN and U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young, who claims the network defamed him in a November 2021 segment. Young, a security contractor, alleges that CNN’s broadcast falsely portrayed him as an “illegal profiteer” exploiting desperate Afghans amid the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. According to Young, the broadcast severely damaged his reputation, making it difficult for him to secure work.
On Thursday, CNN introduced a “surprise document” to challenge Young’s claims of economic harm, raising tensions in the courtroom. The network’s attorney questioned Young about his work history since the broadcast, and he confirmed that he had not been able to find employment. However, CNN’s lawyer then introduced a document showing that Young had signed a consulting agreement with a government contractor, Helios Global, in December 2021, shortly after the broadcast.
Young’s attorney objected, arguing that the document had not been disclosed during the discovery phase and should not be allowed as evidence. The defense, however, insisted that the document was critical for impeaching Young’s testimony, claiming that he had lied during his deposition by failing to disclose his agreement with Helios Global.
The judge, William Henry, became frustrated with both sides, noting the ongoing disputes over discovery and the sudden introduction of the document. He acknowledged that both parties had been at fault in failing to disclose information properly. After a brief recess, the judge ruled that CNN could use the document in the trial, but emphasized that he would not allow personal insults to dominate the proceedings. He warned both sides that they would be fined $100 for each instance of personal attacks.
The controversy over the document highlighted the broader issues of credibility and trust in the case. CNN’s defense argued that Young had knowingly misrepresented his economic situation to the court, while Young’s attorney accused the network of ambushing his client with new evidence at the last minute. Despite the tension, the judge allowed the trial to continue, with the document now part of the evidence.