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

For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © Media Law Resource Center, Inc.offending statements. We were unable to find any story upon which this excerpt couldpossibly have been based. We could not find any story in the daily paper to support thispublication. Of the three people on the editorial side of this paper, each blamed somebodyelse. We could not get anybody to say that they had written this piece. Post-publication ofthe booklet, the paper ran a correction, clearing up that Bramlett was not on death row, butwe never did correct the statement that he had been convicted of murder.e. Experts:None, and I doubt I could have found one if I looked.f. Other evidence:The best evidence we had in this case was the impeachment evidence, based onBramlett’s failure to truthfully answer discovery. We used every police report we could find,to show that Bramlett was simply a drunk and a thug. He then countered with evidence abouthow he had found the Lord, changed his life, etc., etc., which we were able to counter withtestimony from folks in the village where he lives, including testimony about how he gotdrunk and abused his neighbors, soon before this trial was to start.g. Trial dynamics:i. Plaintiff’s counsel:Bob Schulhof, who works largely in bankruptcies and collections, trying what hedescribed to me as his first and last libel case. He had a great liability case, but was justlacking a bit on the damages.ii.Defendant’s trial demeanor:The publisher was present throughout the trial and presented better than might havebeen expected.iii.Length of trial:2.5 days.iv.Judge:Loren Lewis. Cases in circuit not assigned to a particular judge, so Judge Lewis firstlearned of this case the week before he presided over trial. Lewis seemed burdened by thecase and wanted to move it along quickly; he repeatedly demonstrated a lack of patiencetoward both parties.4