2006 MLRC/NAA/NAB LIBEL DEFENSE ... - Directrouter.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.The court denied three pretrial motions to compel the disclosure of confidential newssources.The trial court judge granted in limine motions filed by the defense excluding anytestimony that the reporter’s sources had been the subject of a federal criminal investigation andexcluding reference to confidential sources whose identities had been ruled irrelevant to the case.9. Significant Mid-Trial Rulings:The trial court refused to instruct the jury that intent is an element of a libel byimplication claim.The defense was allowed to present an expert on the state ethics law who testified thatthe plaintiff’s father’s participation in the building certification process was an apparentconflict of interest under state law.10. Trial Management (mid-trial jury instructions, special verdict, sequentialissue determination, bifurcation):The special verdict form gave the jury the option of answering the first question in away that required entry of judgment for the defendant on the libel claim without requiring thejury to render special verdicts with respect to each of the 21 challenged statements in thearticle. The question, as noted above, was: “Has the plaintiff proved that the article, read incontext, asserted a false statement of fact about the plaintiff either directly or by innuendo?”11. Pre-Selection Jury Work (psychological profiles, attitudes surveys, mocktrial, pre-selection questionnaires, “shadow” juries):None.12. Pretrial Evaluation:The potential exposure largely arose from the two statements in the article that werecorrected prior to the suit being brought and from the undisputed fact that the plaintiff’sapplication was properly processed by the school without outside intervention on his behalf andthat the approval obtained with the assistance of the plaintiff’s father was one to which he wasentitled even if his father had no involvement in the process. No offer of settlement was made.13. Defense Juror Preference During Selection:Middle class homeowners without political connections.8
For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.14. Actual Jury Makeup:8 male; 6 female; 7 college degrees; 3 masters degrees15. Issues Tried:Substantial truth, defamatory content, implication, negligence, damages.16. Plaintiff’s Theme(s):The plaintiff’s theme was that the article was a sensationalistic attempt to paint theplaintiff as a corrupt insider who benefited from inside connections when in fact he honestly wonthe lottery without breaking any rules and the certification his father assisted him in obtainingwas one to which he was entitled.17. Defendant’s Theme(s):The article was a substantially true account of a flawed governmental program that waswritten by an honest and experienced reporter.18. Factors/Evidence:N/A.a. Pre-existing attitudes of the venire towards the plaintiff, defendant,or issues:b. Sympathy for plaintiff during trial:The plaintiff overstated his claims and his alleged damages, which likely hurt hiscredibility.c. Proof of actual injury:There was minimal, and questionable, evidence of economic harm. A forensicpsychiatrist testified that the article caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress and led to amajor depression. The plaintiff’s wife testified as to the symptoms of his emotional distress,including agitation, depression and sleeplessness.d. Defendants’ newsgathering/reporting:The plaintiff claimed that the reporter failed to identify himself as a newspaperreporter during the initial telephone interview. He also claimed that the reporter had beenrude, accusatory, unprofessional and aggressive during all interviews. The reporter deniedthese allegations and it appears they were rejected by the jury’s emotional distress verdict.9
Page 2 and 3: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 6: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 60 and 61:
For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
show all

2006 MLRC/NAA/NAB LIBEL DEFENSE ... - Directrouter.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?