By Vanessa E. Curry
In my previously published article (Full Disclosure: A Lesson in Libel posted March 19) I gave readers a general overview of what constitutes libel and what a complainant must prove in order to successfully win a lawsuit.
I also discussed how a court can dismiss the suit by granting a motion for a summary judgment if it agrees the case lacks merit, meaning the complainant failed to provide proper evidence to support the elements required to prove defamation (libel or slander).
More importantly, I explained the difference between a court finding merit in allowing the case to continue, thus denying a summary judgment, and ruling on the actual evidence.
I bring up this topic again in order to explain another dispute arising from what I wrote in my book Lies and Consequences: Covering the Trials of Kerry Max Cook.
David Hanners, the former investigative reporter for The Dallas Morning News, contends my account of the defamation lawsuit filed against him by Tyler psychologist Jerry Landrum is inaccurate.
Landrum sued Hanners and The Dallas Morning News for libel. Without going into too much detail about the case, I incorrectly wrote that Judge Joe Clayton dismissed the case with a directed verdict. What I meant to say, was he granted a motion for a summary judgment. A directed verdict, as I know, is a ruling that may take place during a trial in which a judge directs a jury to rule a certain way.
Once that error was brought to my attention, I corrected it in preparation for the next printing of my book.
But Hanners continues to contend that I left:
“the impression with the reader that we avoided responsibility solely by the grace of a legal technicality carved out for journalists.”
He further contends that my account of the lawsuit “demonstrates a reckless disregard…”
That’s quite a stretch, in my opinion.
Hanners’s arguments continues to baffle me since I’ve repeatedly directed him to read the footnote marked in the same sentence in which I said Clayton ruled Hanners’s article constituted fair comment.
The footnote states:
“Fair comment and criticism are protected by the US Constitution. Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in a defamation case. In this case, Hanners drew a fair conclusion by stating the facts — Landrum’s separate contradicting statements.”
A simple, and fair explanation.