A civil trial in Leelanau that occurred nearly two decades ago taught me much about our legal system. As the judicial branch of government has come under attack from both sides of the aisle, I’ve been reflecting back at what occurred here.
In retrospect, I had much to learn. TV pundits — self-proclaimed legal experts, if you will — routinely make predictions about the outcomes of trials and Supreme Court rulings they finish with a caveat that goes something like: “But you just never know how it will turn out.”
They’re right. Coincidence, evidence restrictions, sympathy and nuance can become deciding factors in court decisions, especially in jury trials. Defendants, plaintiffs, attorneys and sometimes witnesses wear game faces. Those who play their roles best can win even with weak cases should empowered jurors seek justice through their own hearts.
The civil trial was fascinating to me partly because I knew the players through news gathering, but mostly because of the topic. A township supervisor filed a defamation lawsuit against three residents who mass mailed a copy of her unflattering employment evaluation from a few years previous when she served as village clerk. Someone hand printed at the bottom of the report, “Attention: Suttons Bay Villagers Alledged [sic] Misuse of Village Taxpayer Funds?”
I’m leaving out the names of those involved but you can find them with a little research. The identities aren’t as important for understanding the outcome of the lawsuit as is knowledge of the toxicity of politics at the time.
That’s right. Nasty politics did not begin with the 2016 presidential election.
I’m in the information disseminating business, so I paid close attention to what I considered essential facts in the case. The defendants were warned by the former Suttons Bay village manager and treasurer not to mail the report. Notably, though, neither official said that the report was inaccurate. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told to stand down in journalism for reasons other than accuracy.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides protection from defamation lawsuits filed in response to criticism aimed at public officials. State law also provides insulation from frivolous lawsuits by way of the Michigan statutory fair reporting privilege. As no one testified that the defendants knew the report contained falsities at the time of its mailing, the result seemed like a slam dunk on the side of free speech.
The jury came back with a verdict requiring the three men to pay $107,000 in compensation — of which $11,000 was directed toward the plaintiff’s reelection campaign in two years — and to submit letters of apology that were to be published in the “Leelanau Enterprise” and “Traverse City Record-Eagle.”
Looking at my coverage today, I don’t think readers could discern my alarm. My goal in assembling such a story is to award equal coverage in terms of inches and use of verbiage. I want each side happy with the presentation of their words. Not easy, but doable if that’s your goal as a journalist.
The trial occurred days after an off-year general election that filled the airwaves with attack ads. The plaintiff, however, was not up for reelection. Traverse City attorney Grant Parsons, who wrote and filed the lawsuit on behalf of his client, told jurors that they had an opportunity to return civility into campaigning. He was brilliant. His words resonated with an audience weary of hateful politics.
I talked to three of six jurors after the verdict was read. One said, “(The plaintiff) didn’t seem flustered. She provided answers to every question.”
Another juror spoke about the testimony of one defendant: “He got so flustered and red. But the question was why? Are you hiding something?”
The jury’s decision didn’t stand. A little beyond three years later the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned the verdict. The Appellate decision read in part, “However, this case does not hinge on the credibility of the witnesses, but on the speech at issue and the protection afforded political speech.”
I thought the jury was attentive, intelligent and logical. Their verdict reflected the limited First Amendment evidence they were allowed to consider.
I still maintain the case should have been tossed before going to trial. At the least, the jury should have been instructed on free speech protections held by all Americans.
Those protections — which were bestowed by God, not government — should be held above soup-of-the-day vexations that come and go with news cycles.
