Larry Seidlin - The Killing of Anna Nicole Smith

I want to acknowledge my wife Belinda, and my daughter Dax, who has been so patient and is the most important person in my life. I would also like to acknowledge Daxs grandparents, omie, papa and mamaw; and my parents Dave and Betty, who are now in the heavens.

I want to thank my publisher Pierre Turgeon and his son Francois, for believing that we would hit a home run. And my editor, Clare McKeon, who possesses a spirituality that is reflected in her existence and her work. Sometimes I wish we could surround ourselves with people who exhibit only the beauty and truth of the world.

To Diane Sawyer, for being so patient. She is even more beautiful, charming and intelligent in person than she is on television. When she met with my wife and daughter in her conference room, Dax started to spin in one of the leather chairs, and Diane responded by spinning in her own chair, making Dax and all of us laugh. She handwrote a note to Daxs teacher explaining her absence from school.

To Larry King, for bringing Dannielynn on his show as a suprise for me, and for allowing Dax to participate in the encounter. The segment was titled, Three Larrys and a Baby in Los Angeles. I enjoyed getting together with him in New York and thank him for granting a private interview.

To Fox and Geraldo Rivera, and his brother Craig, for treating me like family during my guest appearances as a judicial analyst.

To Greta Van Susteren, for sitting through my trial and for having the insight and fortitude that made our exchanges on contemporary legal issues so satisfying.

To Judge Napolitano, for representing the judiciary on the highest standards and for understanding the truth about how a judicial proceeding takes place.

To everyone at NBCs Today show for making our visits so comfortable during my appearances as a judicial analyst.

To CNNs Wolf Blitzer and Suzanne Malveaux for my time in Washington as a judicial analyst.

To the E! Network, and Ken Baker for his sensitive and compassionate interviews.

To Access Hollywood and Tony Potts for that fun interview on the tennis courts in Pasadena.

To Jane Velez-Mitchell, whom I always look forward to working with, for her depth and analysis of timely issues.

To the staff of Showbiz Tonight for making our interviews and analyses so interesting.

To the staff of Inside Edition for allowing me to express my analysis of the celebrity cases.

To the Saturday Night Live cast members who emulated me. We found it quite enjoyable.

To my close friends and family who gave me support during many a storm.

To the families at my daughters school, Pinecrest, a wonderful educational environment. The teachers, parents and students have been supportive and kind to all of us.

And finally a big thank you to the people on the streets and in the towns who continue to inspire me and show me love and encouragement. As the Beatles once pointed out, All you need is love.

I was an adjunct professor at our local university, and the students enjoyed my presentation of cases. I was known for being able to get to the essence of a complex matter and explain it so that people could understand it. I want to get to the essence of the news that came off the court wires on March 19, 2010, regarding Anna Nicoles interest in J. Howard Marshalls estate.

Circuit Judge Beezer wrote an excellent opinion consisting of thirty-two pages of deep legal analysis. Thats where well start. For you, my reader and juror, I will, as usual, quote the pertinent parts of the opinion and then dissect them.

In Re: Vickie Marshall. Debtor

Elaine T. Marshall, Executrix of the Estate of E. Pierce Marshall, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant/Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

v.

Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, Defendant-Counter-Claimant/Appelle-Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 02-56002, 02-56067

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed March 19, 2010

Before: Robert R. Beezer, Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Beezer, Concurrence by Judge Kleinfeld.

Notice first that Howard K. Stern is the executor of the estate of Anna Nicole. And second, that this case has been languishing in the probate and bankruptcy divisions for a very long time. The attorneys fees for this case, I would bet, are in the millions and millions of dollars. Oddly enough, this case has outlived both J. Howard Marshall, and his son, E. Pierce Marshall, who was one of the primary moving parties.

Judge Beezer in his written opinion states: This case involves a tort claim by Vickie Lynn Marshall against E. Pierce Marshall, the son of her late husband J. Howard Marshall II, for Pierce Marshalls purported interference with a substantial inter vivos gift (estimated to exceed $300,000,000) that her late husband intended to give to her. The claim comes to us in an unusual procedural posture. It was asserted as a state law counter claim to a nondischargeability complaint and proof of claim that Pierce Marshall filed in Vickie Lynn Marshalls bankruptcy proceedings in the Central District of California. Both the bankruptcy and district courts found that Pierce Marshall was liable for tortious interference and awarded Vickie Lynn Marshall millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.

While Vickie Lynn Marshalls tortious interference claim was pending in federal court in California, a probate court in Texas was administering the estate of J. Howard Marshall II. Both Vickie Lynn Marshall and Pierce Marshall were actively engaged in this Texas litigation, participating fully in the five month jury trial held by the Texas probate court. To discern J. Howard Marshall IIs true intentions regarding his will and assets held in trust, the Texas probate court had to resolve allegations that J. Howard Marshall IIs estate plan and the transactions underlining it were tainted by illegality and that, contrary to his estate plan, J. Howard Marshall II intended to give Vickie Lynn Marshall a substantial inter vivos gift. In its judgment, which was issued after the bankruptcy courts judgment on Vickie Lynn Marshalls tortious interference claim but before the district court had adjudicated the appeal from the bankruptcy court, the Texas probate court upheld the validity of J. Howard Marshalls estate plan and estate planning documents, finding that J. Howard knowingly effected his estate plan free from the undue influence or coercion of his son Pierce Marshall. The Texas probate court further found that J. Howard Marshall II did not intend to give Vickie Lynn Marshall a gift from the assets that passed through his will or that were held in his living trust. These and other legal and factual determinations adverse to Vickie Lynn Marshall would be fatal to her tortious interference counterclaim, should they be afforded preclusive effect in this proceeding.

Probate court and guardianship are assignments given to senior judges. These cases can become very complicated and have a tortuous avenue of legal options, especially when there is a lot of money at stake. The body is dead and the parties are out for blood and money. Basically, what happened here is that the Texas probate court, located in Houston, had a thorough jury trial concerning certain specified issues. Once these issues were resolved, and Im going to review them for you, then these issues dont need to be litigated again (res judicata).

In the law, you dont get two bites of the apple in front of two separate courts. If you are displeased with the lower court ruling, your option is to appeal. Here we had two parallel tracks taking place. Many of the issues being litigated in the Texas probate court were also being duplicated in the California bankruptcy court.