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.transcripts” be inserted but the phrase had been used in the preceding paragraph. They thenagreed that the sentence would be changed to “Gorajczyk told the DuPage grand jury.”After a three-week trial where plaintiff represented himself pro se, state district courtjudge, Robert Gordon, granted a motion for directed verdict as to defendant Ken Armstrongand the jury returned a verdict in favor of The Chicago Tribune and Maurice Possley, theprincipal author.4. Verdict:Verdict for the defense on the general liability question. Three special interrogatorieswere also answered: there was no actual malice and there was no defamation but thestatement was false in a material way.5. Length of Trial:Three weeks.6. Length of Deliberation:Approximately 4½ hours.7. Size of Jury:Twelve jurors and two alternates. Court required a unanimous verdict.8. Significant Pre-Trial Rulings:Motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied. A second motion forsummary judgment was filed on behalf of Ken Armstrong after the close of discovery andshortly before trial and was also denied. Interestingly, Judge Flanagan’s order denyingArmstrong’s second motion for summary judgment stated in part, “[Armstrong] points outthat it is undisputed that he had nothing to do with the portion of the article containing thedefamatory language and there is no evidence that he knew about the falsity of the statementat issue. Further, while the plaintiff does not dispute the lack of evidence againstArmstrong . . . the evidence in the record is sufficient to raise questions of fact vis-à-vis theissue of actual malice on the part of Armstrong, the extent of his knowledge of falsity of thestatement at issue, and the extent of his participation in the creation of the complete article.”Motions in Limine: Plaintiff opposed defendants’ collection of other media stories(books, television programs such as A&E and “60 Minutes,” other newspaper coverage)about plaintiff’s prosecution of the Nicarico murder, which became known as the “haystack.”The court initially granted plaintiff’s motion in limine, but informed the plaintiff that if heopened the door to his reputation, the court would reconsider the ruling.36
For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.Plaintiff also moved to bar evidence or comment that defendants in the Nicaricomurder trial (Cruz, Buckley, an Hernandez) spent time in prison or that Cruz spent years ondeath row as irrelevant and highly prejudicial. According to plaintiff, “in fact, Buckley neverwas in prison or death row. He was held only as a pre-trial detainee.” Buckley, whose bootswere examined by Gorajczyk, had a hung jury in the 1985 trial (conducted by plaintiff) andwas not released until 1988, after the State’s key expert witness died from brain cancer andan FBI examiner came to the conclusion that the footprint on the Nicarico door could nothave been caused by the Buckley boot. The court granted the motion.Judge Gordon informed plaintiff, who was pro se, that he would not be permitted togive a narrative in his direct testimony and that he had to have another lawyer question himon direct. Plaintiff objected vigorously that he was the only one who knew his case, buteventually acquiesced and brought in a former judge to do the questioning.Defendants filed motions in limine to exclude any testimony or evidence of economicdamages or mental anguish because of plaintiff’s refusal to provide discovery responses anddocuments evidencing same (based on his objections that it was a libel per se case anddamages were presumed). These motions were granted and were significant as the trialproceeded.9. Significant Mid-Trial Rulings:Judge Gordon granted a directed verdict in favor of defendant Armstrong at the closeof plaintiff’s case.Judge Gordon also modified his ruling on admission of the “haystack” evidence andpermitted the defense to show limited excerpts from A&E and other news articles, that predatedthe January 1999 publication date of the article and specifically addressed the issue ofthe experts’ examinations of the Buckley boot that was the subject of the complained-oflanguage.Plaintiff also objected to the introduction of his website which touted his trial andsettlement successes after the date of the publication as prejudicial and not relevant because,according to plaintiff, this was a libel per se case and damages were presumed andirrebuttable. When the court overruled the plaintiff’s objections and his theory that presumeddamages are irrebuttable, plaintiff then attempted to testify about his income and theexpenses and portion of the settlements he received. The court sustained defendants’objections to such evidence on grounds that such information had been asked for in discoverybut plaintiff had refused to produce same.Another issue was plaintiff’s introduction of The Tribune’s Stylebook over thedefendants’ vigorous objections. The court ultimately limited the exhibit to a redacted pagethat only contained the definition of “Fairness.”37
Page 2 and 3: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 6: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 15: For exclusive use of MLRC members a
Page 88 and 89:
For exclusive use of MLRC members a
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?