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.10. Trial Management (mid-trial jury instructions, special verdict, sequentialissue determination, bifurcation):Defendants asked for and were granted three special interrogatories (actual malice,defamatory or not, and falsity) in addition to the general liability questions.Defendants’ request for a mid-trial definition of actual malice and falsity was denied.11. Pre-Selection Jury Work (psychological profiles, attitudes surveys, mocktrial, pre-selection questionnaires, “shadow” juries):Jurors were asked to fill out a 24-question Juror Questionnaire. The case was mocktried approximately seven months prior to trial and a shadow jury was used during trial.12. Pretrial Evaluation:While plaintiff’s reputation had certainly been tarnished by the DuPage 7 indictmentand trial, there was an admitted mistake of attribution in the complained-of sentence. Themistake, however, was not material and the paraphrase “keep your mouth shut” was the samething as “told Gorajczyk not to discuss the matter with anyone about his negative findingsand his failure to write a report.”13. Defense Juror Preference During Selection:We were particularly interested in how the jurors answered the following questions onthe questionnaire, although all the questions were considered important:1. Indicate your level of trust in the following:a) Newspapers accurately reporting the newsb) Television accurately reporting the newsc) Area law enforcement agencies (police, prosecutors)d) Judicial system (judges, lawyers, juries)2. How concerned are you about the following issues on a scale of 1 to 7:neighborhood crimefreedom of the pressindividual rightsright to a fair trialprotecting one’s own reputationimposing the death penaltyinnocent persons in jail3. Which of the following situations do you consider to be the worst wrong?a) a guilty person goes unpunished; ORb) an innocent person goes to jail or prison.38
For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.Please explain.We were obviously interested in persons who placed high value on freedom of thepress and individual rights. Given the facts of the underlying DuPage 7 case and the chargesof prosecutorial misconduct against plaintiff, together with the fact that the three young menspent years in jail before being exonerated, we were also concerned with the prospectivejurors’ views on wrongful convictions, law and order, and whether they would besympathetic to the concept that the public has an interest in the criminal justice system andthe newspaper’s reporting on it. We were also interested in ferreting out those jurors whomight have an “ends justify the means” attitude toward law enforcement and be sympatheticto the plaintiff.14. Actual Jury Makeup:Seven women and five men, four of whom were African Americans, one of EasternEuropean descent, and the remainder were Caucasian. The alternates were Caucasianwomen.15. Issues Tried:Defamation, falsity, actual malice, damages.16. Plaintiff’s Theme(s):Plaintiff portrayed himself as an upstanding family man – his wife and familymembers were in court every day, although they sat in the gallery and were apparentlyinstructed by him not to come inside the bar to assist him whenever the jury was around.This was noted by at least one of the jurors.He was a victim of a “witch hunt” instigated by The Chicago Tribune and its reportersto put “prosecutors on trial.” Every aspect of The Chicago Tribune’s five-part series – eventhe articles addressing the national survey on prosecutorial misconduct – was about “him.”Plaintiff did not dispute the lack of evidence against Armstrong other than to showthat he was the author of the memo that said “let’s put the prosecutors on trial.” Plaintiff hada theory that Armstrong, as co-author of the article, could be held vicariously liable under ajoint enterprise theory regardless of whether or not he knew the statement was false orentertained serious doubt as to its truth.Plaintiff contended that the 29 words were defamatory per se and, therefore, not onlywere damages presumed, but defendants should be barred from presenting evidence to rebutor mitigate those damages.39
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 90 and 91:
For exclusive use of MLRC members a
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?