Erin Andrews’ legal team wants to reexamine Marriott exec who saw peephole video

The latest development in the Erin Andrews $75 million civil trial against a hotel chain, over a now-infamous nude peephole video, could spell trouble for the defense.

Marriott executive Neal Peskind, who testified Monday at the trial, went out Tuesday night to an area restaurant. While there, two of his friends openly played the video in question.

On Wednesday morning the defense issued the following statement about what happened:

 

Last night, Mr. Peskin (sic) and two of his friends, a husband and wife, were having dinner, and the friends brought the video up on their phone, to which he objected and immediately asked them to stop. The video was then turned off. We don’t make light of this situation. Ms. Andrews was the victim of a crime, which has been our position from the beginning and is the reason Mr. Peskin (sic) asked his friends to stop the video. Other comments attributed to Mr. Peskin (sic) surrounding this conversation never occurred.

 

WSMV reports that a bartender claimed it was Peskind who was showing the video. “He said it was costing him millions so he was going to show it to everyone. His friends were making fun of her and her body. We had to ask him to stop. It was disgusting and horrifying,” the bartender said.

The owner of the Margot Cafe and Bar, Margot McCormack, backed her employees’ actions in a statement:

 

Based on what I have heard regarding the incident last night, one of my servers was made uncomfortable by activity at one of our tables. It is my understanding the supervisor on duty asked the customer to stop the behavior. I would expect any of my staff to respond to rude or offensive behavior in my restaurant. We take great pride in providing our guests with a quality experience.

 

TMZ is reporting that Andrews’ legal team will request Peskind retake the stand in order to testify about what transpired. Andrews has already testified that the video, showing her in a state of undress, haunts her daily and that it always will because it’s impossible for it to be scraped from the internet.

While it would seem like this situation could be a death blow for the defense, a legal expert with WSMV argued that it will have little impact. According to Jim Todd, “People have a First Amendment right to state their opinions on how litigation might affect them or what they think of somebody, and that’s not the issue of this lawsuit.”

Even if the judge rules against the request, the jury for the trial is not sequestered. While they’ve been instructed to ignore all news reports related to the case, it’s not a stretch to imagine that this situation would become known to them.

Todd added, “It’s never a good idea for defendants to discuss pending litigation in public.”