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.22. Post-Trial Disposition:Plaintiff’s post-trial motion for new trial was denied. He has filed an appeal.Plaintiff’s Attorneys:Thomas Knight, pro seDefendant’s Attorneys:Charles L. BabcockNancy W. HamiltonCedric ScottJackson Walker L.L.P.1401 McKinney, #1900Houston, TX 77010(713) 752-4200(713) 752-4221 (FAX)cbabcock@jw.comnhamilton@jw.comcscott@jw.comH. Patrick Morris (local counsel)Johnson & Bell55 E. Monroe St., #4100Chicago, Il 60603G. Case Name: Ernest B. Murphy v. Boston Herald, et al.Court: Suffolk County (Massachusetts) Superior CourtCase Number: SUCV2002-02424Verdict rendered on: February 18, 20051. Name and Date of Publication:Over twenty publications in February and March, 2002, beginning with “Murphy’sLaw” and “Dump the Judge.”2. Profile:a. Print X ; TV _____; other _____________________.b. Plaintiff: public X ; private _____.c. Newsgathering tort _____; Publication tort X .3. Case Summary:The Boston Herald ran a series of articles about Judge Murphy and about decisionsthat he had made while sitting as a judge in New Bedford (Bristol County), where he had46
For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.developed a reputation for being soft on criminals. Most of the articles were written by onereporter, David Wedge. Wedge had interviewed the District Attorney, a senior AssistantDistrict Attorney, and a more junior Assistant District Attorney. They all told Wedge thatJudge Murphy was unsympathetic to victims and had said of one 14-year-old rape victim,“she’s 14, she got raped, she can’t go through life as a victim, tell her to get over it,” shortlyafter having sentenced the rapist to straight probation. The junior Assistant District Attorneytold Wedge he was present and personally heard Judge Murphy make the “get over it”statement. During the course of the numerous articles in the series on Judge Murphy, thatstatement was repeated multiple times, along with several other statements that JudgeMurphy ultimately claimed were defamatory.Judge Murphy vehemently denied that he ever made that statement or any otherstatement that was unsympathetic to a victim.4. Verdict:$2,090,000 for loss of reputation and emotional distress, reduced through post-trialmotions to $2,005,000.5. Length of Trial:Five weeks.6. Length of Deliberation:Five days.7. Size of Jury:13, including one alternate.8. Significant Pre-Trial Rulings:The judge denied in its entirety the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.Defendants attempted without success to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Defendants also hadmade a motion shortly before trial to bifurcate liability and damages, which was denied.9. Significant Mid-Trial Rulings:The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce evidence of damage caused by a columnwritten by one of the Herald’s political columnists that was highly critical of Judge Murphy,even though the column had not been identified in the complaint.47
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 98 and 99:
For exclusive use of MLRC members a
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?