May 1 ILLINOIS: High-stakes Tribune libel trial to start For the 1st time in nearly 40 years, the Chicago Tribune will go to trial in a libel case, in which the paper and 2 of its investigative reporters are accused of tarnishing the reputation of a former DuPage County prosecutor involved in a wrongful murder conviction. Thomas Knight contends he was defamed in a 1999 story that was part of a 5-part series on alleged misconduct by prosecutors, titled "Trial & Error - How Prosecutors Sacrifice Justice to Win." Reporters Maurice Possley and Ken Armstrong, now a reporter for the Seattle Times, wrote the articles. It is a high-stakes trial, slated to begin Monday, between the city's largest newspaper and a public official who was the lead prosecutor in a horrendous crime - the 1983 murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. The Tribune has hired 1st Amendment specialist Charles "Chip" Babcock, a Texas lawyer who successfully defended Oprah Winfrey when she was sued for libel by cattlemen in the late 1990s. Knight is representing himself in the case. The series about prosecutors launched the newspaper's extensive examination of the nation's criminal justice system. The numerous articles uncovered systemic problems in the way capital punishment was meted out in Illinois. The Tribune's widely praised reporting helped exonerate men who had been unjustly sentenced to death. The paper won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for editorials based on the investigative reporting. More than the newspaper's reputation is at stake in this case. The trial, which is expected to last at least 3 weeks in Cook County Circuit Court, likely will detail how investigative reports are conceived, reported, written and edited. A ruling against the newspaper could have a chilling effect on how aggressively the Tribune and other news outlets pursue investigations, said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center. "Any time the media is involved in a trial with a public official, the chances of having a public impact is relatively high," she said. "Reporters are real people who have a great deal invested in the seriousness of their craft." The last time the Tribune went to trial in a libel case was in 1968, according to the newspaper's lawyers. The case involved a physician who sued the paper for articles that labeled her a "quack." The Tribune prevailed in that case. But much has changed about the public's perception of the news media since that case. The industry faces increasing public skepticism following recent high-profile problems of accuracy and plagiarism at The New York Times and USA Today. Some media lawyers say that could have a bearing on jurors' attitudes about the motives and methods of journalists. "The newspaper is not necessarily regarded as the venerable institution it once was," said Michael Conway, a media lawyer at Foley & Lardner in Chicago. "It's part of the overall skepticism of all kinds of powerful institutions, such as churches and the government." Conway has represented the Tribune in various matters in the past. In his lawsuit Knight, a private attorney in Wheaton, contends the newspaper "impeached (Knight's) integrity, human decency and respect for others, thereby tending to lower him in the eyes of the community." As a public official, he has a greater burden of proof than private individuals. To prevail, he is required to show that the Tribune and the reporters acted with "actual malice," a legal term that means the defendants knew the defamatory statements were false or that they recklessly disregarded the truth. Legal experts say proving actual malice is difficult because it relies heavily on showing the reporter's state of mind. It is not enough merely to show a reporter was sloppy or made errors. Knight, 59, is seeking unspecified damages in excess of $50,000. Knight's complaint centers on a story published Jan. 12, 1999, written by Possley, chronicling the criminal case against Knight, 2 other former prosecutors and four DuPage County sheriff's officers. The defendants had been indicted in December 1996 on charges that they had framed Rolando Cruz for the 1983 kidnapping, rape and murder of Nicarico. In the trial Knight and the others were acquitted on charges that they concocted evidence to gain a conviction and concealed evidence that would have exonerated Cruz. The Tribune story in question ran before the trial. In his lawsuit Knight focuses on five paragraphs in the 4,000-word story, which said an evidence expert in 1984 notified Knight that a boot print found on the Nicarico front door did not match the boot of one of the criminal suspects. The article, based in part on grand jury transcripts, stated that the expert testified before the grand jury that "Knight told him to keep his mouth shut about his conclusion and not to tell anyone that there was no written report." In fact, the expert, John Gorajczyk, did not appear before the grand jury. According to Knight's court filings, the statement attributed to Gorajczyk came from grand jury testimony of a private investigator recounting what the expert allegedly told him. In seeking to have Knight's case dismissed the Tribune's lawyers said that the story's portrayal that Gorajczyk testified before a grand jury was "simply, a mistake." The paper went on to state in court documents that it had given a "rational interpretation" of what the grand jury was told and that there was no malice by the Tribune or its reporters. Knight acknowledges telling the expert to keep his findings to himself, but argues that he never used the language attributed to him in the Tribune story. The Tribune responded that it never directly quoted Knight as telling the expert to "keep his mouth shut," but was merely paraphrasing him. In the lawsuit Knight claims the story "imputed" that he committed "solicitation or conspiracy to obstruct justice." "They said those terrible things about me without checking with me to see if the statement was true, even though they had a clear line of communication with me before the story went to print," Knight said in an e-mail to a Tribune reporter Friday. Babcock said in an interview with the Tribune on Friday that Possley attempted on several occasions to interview Knight and was rejected each time. Possley also went out of his way to find sources favorable to Knight, Babcock said. During the prosecutors' trial Knight was the subject of considerable press coverage, much of it negative, Babcock said. "He's taking a little tiny needle in a huge haystack of publicity and saying it damaged him," Babcock said. "He has not given any evidence of damage." Knight counters that he doesn't have to prove that he was harmed by the defamation. On Friday, Knight sought to expand his witness list to question Tribune employees in connection with the misidentification of two individuals as mobsters indicted by the federal government last week. Knight said the mistakes illustrate a pattern of the paper's reckless behavior. Tribune attorneys say they will seek to exclude such information from the trial on the grounds that it is not relevant to the case. (source: Chicago Tribune) SOUTH CAROLINA: Spann up for second try at parole--Inmate pleaded guilty but denies killing Clover woman Sterling Spann gets a 2nd shot at parole Wednesday for a brutal 1981 killing he pleaded guilty to -- but claimed he didn't do. Statistics show his chances at freedom are slim. Maybe most importantly, relatives of strangled and raped Melva Niell of Clover are expected to again tell the state parole board that Spann should never get out of prison. "If you do the crime, you do the time," said Andy Thompson, Niell's nephew. In the 2002 plea to murder and burglary charges, Spann admitted no guilt in what is called an Alford plea but accepted the consequences of guilt. Those consequences are up to life in prison. Spann, 42, was turned down for parole last May. The 7-member parole board immediately and unanimously voted against release without any discussion. Spann was 1st convicted in 1982, but he maintained his innocence while on death row for 17 years. His lawyers worked for years to get him a new trial, finding new evidence they claimed pointed to another man as the killer. In 1999, Spann's verdict was overturned and a new trial was ordered. He was released on bond and lived in York County. "He convinced people," Thompson said of Spann's story that he didn't kill Niell. "Not me." Prosecutor Tommy Pope also remained convinced Spann was guilty and planned to again seek the death penalty. But before the trial could start in 2002, Spann decided to plead guilty rather than risk potential execution. Still, Spann claimed he didn't kill Niell. The parole board looks at whether an inmate has support if released, if he is a risk to the community and prison records. The board also accepts letters for and against release and allows families to testify. However, the parole board's job is not to review the 20-plus years of legal wranglings that ended with Spann's plea. At last year's hearing when Spann's lawyer tried to explain why his client was not showing remorse for Niell's death, he was cut off by then-board chair June Shissias. "It is not the function of the parole board to retry the case," Shissias said. Spann's family told the board in the teleconferenced hearing from prison that they would support him. A businessman said he'd give Spann a job in Concord, N.C., and $6,000 in cash to start a new life. Spann told the board he had taken every opportunity to better himself in prison. But Thompson and another of Niell's nephews, John Knox Hoover Jr., told the board Spann didn't deserve a second chance. It was Hoover that identified his raped and strangled aunt in her bathtub, and he told board members that his mother grieved herself to death in fear for her own life while Spann was out on bond. Thompson vowed to keep up the fight against Spann's release to the end of his life. He and Hoover will again be at the hearing to testify, Thompson said. "I made a promise to my mother," Thompson said. "That promise was to fight this." Statistics from 2004 parole hearings show only about 21 percent of violent offenders get paroled, said Peter O'Boyle, spokesman for the state Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. Murder cases statistically have been less likely to get parole than the rest of violent crimes, he said. From 1999 to 2001 -- the most recent statistics O'Boyle said were available -- only 67 of 538 parole hearings for murder were successful. It is unclear who will be at Broad River prison to support Spann on Wednesday or what strategy will be used. Spann's lawyers could not be reached for comment. Other than Thompson and Hoover, it is also unclear who might oppose Spann's release. O'Boyle said people who want to testify for or against can decide as late as Wednesday morning to attend. Pope will not be there to fight release. As part of the plea deal, Pope vowed not to fight parole other than sending a standard letter he sends for all inmates asking that the full sentence be served. (source: Rock Hill Herald) ARIZONA: Hill to remain in jail A Fort Mojave man on death row will remain in jail at least until his new trial is completed, a Superior Court judge decided Friday. Judge Richard Weiss overturned the 1st-degree murder conviction of Clarence Hill, 56, 2 weeks ago and ordered a new trial because of new evidence. Hill was convicted in 1989 and sentenced to death for killing his landlord, Dale Edmundson, a Mohave Valley resident. DNA testing completed several months ago shows that Edmundson's blood was not found on Hill's clothing or his bed sheet as prosecution had alleged. The blood on Hill's clothes was probably his own and blood in his bed was from an unnamed woman, said defense attorney Rick Williams. Williams argued that his client should be released because the conviction has been overturned. "If a person is convicted and sentenced to prison, they have to serve their prison sentence whether or not they seek review or appeal. The opposite of that should hold," he said in court Friday. "Mr. Hill is entitled to a presumption of innocence." Assistant state Attorney General J.D. Nielsen agreed that Hill is entitled to a presumption of innocence, but said he is not eligible for bail. "If you are convinced that the state has shown that presumption is great that the defendant murdered the victim, the state would disagree with council," he said. The state's position is that Hill should not be released prior to trial because much of the evidence against him was unrelated to blood samples, said County Attorney Matt Smith. Judge Weiss said since prosecutors argued about the blood evidence in their closing statements, and the jury could not separate those remarks from the rest of the trial, the decision was "constitutionally unfirm." However, he pointed out that the new DNA results don't take away from the other evidence in the case. Williams also argued for Hill's release because of health concerns. Hill is in a wheelchair and has been diagnosed with scleroderma, a connective tissue disease characterized by changes in the skin, muscles and internal organs. "We would assert that he's entitled to this (release) since he has been held on death row for 15 years," Williams said, "and in light of this court's decision, he's been unjustly held on death row." Weiss assigned Williams to represent the defendant at the new trial along with an attorney from the county Public Defender's Office. The trial is scheduled for June 9 with a pre-trial set for May 26. Smith said he is unsure whether he will again seek the death penalty in the case. (source: Mohave Daily News) GEORGIA: Death Penalty Cases Increase in Ga. The Office of the Georgia Capital Defender, which offers assistance in death penalty cases, has been flooded with death penalty cases from around the state and says it is in danger of running out of money. That is because of an increase in cases since January that came on the heels of a new law. The law allows counties to shift the costs of defending capital cases to the state. Prosecutors had held off filing notices they would seek the death penalty in cases in their counties until this year, when the state would take over payment of lawyers for defendants who cant afford to hire their own. And now the Capital Defender office, which has already taken on 21 death penalty cases this year, is on track to surpass the 47 cases it has budgeted for this year. If the rate remains steady, the Capital Defender office could have more than 60 cases by the end of the year. It had only 27 death penalty cases in 2004. The agencys director, Chris Adams, says they are funded based on the number of cases in which the death penalty was sought in the past. But he says that based on the way district attorneys had been holding back filing death penalty notices, the agency could end up running out of money. (source: APTV)
