TERRE HAUTE — The Tribune-Star has asked the judge who presided over the libel trial against the paper to set aside the $1.5 million jury verdict because it contradicts the state and federal constitutional rights of the press to report citizen allegations against public officials.
The 39-page brief was submitted last week to Magistrate Ann Smith Mischler in a defamation case brought against the paper by Jeff Maynard, a Clay County law enforcement officer. The brief also asked that if the verdict was not overturned, the judge should reduce the jury’s award of $500,000 in compensatory and $1 million in punitive damages, describing both as “excessive” and “outrageous” awards that would deter free speech.
A six-member jury found in favor of Maynard, who sued the Tribune-Star in 2004 for publishing two articles about sworn allegations of misconduct made by a driver after a Feb. 28, 2004, traffic stop. Those allegations turned out to be false.
An investigation by the Indiana State Police cleared Maynard of all wrongdoing, and the Clay County prosecutor charged Maynard’s accuser, Sandra Buczek of Clay City, with false reporting. A third story in the Tribune-Star, reporting that outcome, was not included in the lawsuit.
The false reporting charge was later dismissed as part of a plea agreement in another case against Buczek that was unrelated to the traffic stop.
In its motion to correct errors, the Tribune-Star says the jury’s verdict was “clearly erroneous” in light of long-held and widely affirmed legal requirements for proving defamation in cases brought by public officials or involving matters of public concern.
“Maynard’s focus throughout the trial was on calling into question the truth of Buczek’s allegations,” the brief states. “That focus was fundamentally misplaced, as a matter of law. The issue is not whether Buczek’s allegations were true; rather it is whether the Tribune-Star accurately reported her allegations.”
Among the many requirements necessary to prove defamation is “clear and convincing” evidence of constitutional “actual malice.” In other words, a plaintiff must show that a publication or individual published information that was known or strongly suspected by the publishing entity to be false.
“We feel the articles accurately and neutrally reported allegations of police misconduct and the ensuing investigation,” said Jeremiah Turner, publisher of the Tribune-Star. “We just don’t feel that the evidence shows the stories were published with actual malice.”
Maynard, who has been promoted to detective in the Clay sheriff’s department, did not return messages left on his office voicemail and with a sheriff’s staff member.
His Terre Haute attorney, Eric Frey, dismissed the newspaper’s legal motion as “a regurgitation of the same argument” the Tribune-Star previously has made and “what I expected they would do.”
Frey said the paper’s motion to correct errors was akin to saying the jury had no right to decide the case. He said he would file a response asking Mischler to deny the motion.
Steve Key, general counsel with the Hoosier State Press Association, echoed publisher Turner’s assessment.
“As a matter of law, we can’t see how there could be any imputation of malice or reckless disregard of the truth,” Key said.
If the Sullivan jury’s verdict were to stand, it would have “a chilling impact” on the ability of newspapers to cover any kind of allegation of misconduct by government, he said.
In its legal argument, the Tribune-Star says that “affirming the verdict will send a clear and alarming message to citizens and newspapers alike — don’t make or report allegations of misconduct of public officials or even criminal investigations of these officials or risk a defamation suit.”
Left alone, the brief adds, the verdict “would serve to erode the very foundations underlying the First Amendment.”
The Tribune-Star is represented by the Terre Haute law firm of Cox, Zwerner, Gambill and Sullivan. The newspaper’s motion, filed Friday, cites dozens of cases in which courts and juries ruled in favor of journalistic defendants.
“The common thread running throughout these cases, binding them together is that accurate and neutral reports concerning investigations or even allegations of misconduct by public officials are immune from defamation liability to preserve the freedom of the press (as well as the public’s right to be informed) guaranteed by the First Amendment,” the brief says.
Citing a 2002 Indiana appellate court decision, the legal argument notes: “The protection is even broader under the Indiana Constitution, which ‘more jealously protects freedom of speech guarantees than does the United States Constitution.’ ”
Sullivan County inherited the Maynard case, originally filed June 30, 2004, in Vigo Superior Court Circuit Court, as part of an annual transfer of many civil tort cases meant to alleviate backlogs here.
The defamation trial lasted three days. The jury, consisting of four women and two men, deliberated about two hours before returning its verdict and monetary award.
According to Key of the Hoosier State Press Association, the $1.5 million in damages — $1 million of it punitive — is the largest libel award against a media defendant in the state’s history.
In the Tribune-Star’s motion, the newspaper says both compensatory and punitive damages were “excessive and not rationally related to the evidence.”
Among its arguments, the Tribune-Star contends that the $1-million punitive award violates its “Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibit a State from imposing a ‘grossly excessive’ punishment” on a tort defendant.
Turner said the newspaper is prepared to take its case further, if necessary.
“While one of the options the magistrate has is to uphold the verdict but reduce the damages,” the publisher said, “anything short of overturning this disturbing verdict would prompt us to proceed to the next step in the appeals process.”
