Skip to comments.
Ohio Justice Sues N.Y. Times Over Story (Timesman wrote untruths about Justice Sweeney)
GUARDIAN (UK) ^
| 5/13/03
Posted on 05/13/2003 2:01:39 AM PDT by Liz
CLEVELAND (AP) - The New York Times and a state Supreme Court justice went to court Monday over an article involving a lawsuit filed by the son of Dr. Sam Sheppard.
In opening statements in U.S. District Court, lawyer Don C. Iler said Times reporter Fox Butterfield wrote things about Justice Francis E. Sweeney that he knew were untrue and damaged the judge's reputation.
But newspaper attorney James Wooley said any errors were unintentional and without malice.
Sweeney's lawsuit alleges the April 13, 2000, Times story defamed him by falsely saying he used his influence in a case he had been involved in earlier as a prosecutor.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
Sheppard was convicted in the July 4, 1954, beating death of his wife. The doctor's conviction was overturned on appeal, and he was acquitted at a retrial in 1966. Sheppard, who died four years later, always maintained his innocence, and his story helped inspire the movie and television series ``The Fugitive.''
Sheppard's son, San Reese Sheppard, filed a lawsuit to have a court declare his father innocent, which would have qualified the Sheppard estate to make a claim against the state of Ohio.
The Times story noted that Sweeney would not recuse himself and had voted in the 4-3 minority when the Ohio Supreme Court decided against blocking the Sheppard civil lawsuit. It said he refused to step aside although he had been an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor when Sheppard was tried again in 1966.
Iler said Butterfield should have known that Sweeney, at the time of Sheppard's criminal retrial in the 1960s, was an assistant prosecutor in charge of juvenile cases and had nothing to do with the Sheppard case.
``What kind of a journalist would do this to an honorable, reputable justice of the Ohio Supreme Court? What Fox Butterfield did, he did intentionally, recklessly and with malice,'' Iler said.
Wooley said Butterfield was thorough in his research. He also said the fact that Sweeney was not part of the Sheppard prosecution ``was an honest mistake'' that later was corrected.
``There will be no evidence of actual malice, nothing. Everything he wrote was supported in his notes,'' Wooley said.
He also said Sweeney was and remains a well respected Ohio Supreme Court justice.
``His reputation is sound and intact,'' he said.
---
On the Net:
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: cleveland; fleebailey; newyorktimes; nyt; ohio; samsheppard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Jayson Blair, and now Fox Butterfield. Will the NY Times falsehoods never end? (/sarcasm off).
1
posted on
05/13/2003 2:01:39 AM PDT
by
Liz
To: Liz
Never write a slanderous report about a state supreme court justice. If this is true, and you never can tell with the NYT tabloid these days, the guy should be called 'Butter Brain'.
To: martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; Miss Marple; Tamsey; ...
This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.
3
posted on
05/13/2003 2:28:12 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: Liz
4
posted on
05/13/2003 2:30:53 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: Timesink
"Fox Butterfield"? Fox Butterfield?
5
posted on
05/13/2003 2:43:10 AM PDT
by
martin_fierro
(A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
To: Timesink
When Pussy Galore gets a byline, I'm checking out.
6
posted on
05/13/2003 2:44:46 AM PDT
by
martin_fierro
(A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
To: Liz
Rule #1: Don't piss off a guy who buys his ink by the barrel.
Addendum to Rule #1: NOBODY should piss off a judge.
7
posted on
05/13/2003 2:47:00 AM PDT
by
martin_fierro
(A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
To: Liz
...newspaper attorney James Wooley said any errors were unintentional and without malice Notice that the Times' lieyer didn't say that the piece wasn't without an agenda, something that Fox "I Hate Guns" Butterfield is absolutely famous for here on Free Republic.
To: Liz
I hope that this sets a legal precedent. Hopefully, the NY Slimes will find itself up to its lying neck with lawsuits targeting lies and half truths to advance the left wing agenda!
To: Grampa Dave
I was hoping for the same. The NYT needs to be taken down to size....a very small size
I wouldn't mind a tabloid size NYT carrying obits, puzzles and restaurant reviews.
10
posted on
05/13/2003 8:52:45 AM PDT
by
Liz
To: an amused spectator
Liberal lieyers........what can you expect?
11
posted on
05/13/2003 8:53:55 AM PDT
by
Liz
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Lamebrain is more like it.
12
posted on
05/13/2003 8:55:20 AM PDT
by
Liz
To: Liz
How about a once aweek throwaway NYSlime with restaurant ads, ads for homosexuals wanting to meet other homosexuals, and their weekly Diversity Cry story about an illegal alien with 16 bastards kids suffering under the evil GW and Texas oilmen.
To: Grampa Dave
You'd make a great NYT editor.
14
posted on
05/13/2003 9:01:07 AM PDT
by
Liz
To: Grampa Dave
I can see the NYP headline now: Oops, They Did It Again!
15
posted on
05/13/2003 9:02:00 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
To: Liz
What did I do to you? Sob, you posted: You'd make a great NYT editor.
To: Liz
any errors were unintentional and without maliceHere we go with the "absence of malice BS"!
To: mewzilla
The NY Post needs to have a section of its front page showing the latest lies/half truths of the NY Slimes.
Then in a back section, they should list all of the NY Slimes lies since the communists took over Russia.
To: ThomasMore
The Slimes if you listen to them only lies unintentionally and without malice in their hit pieces against those they don't agree with.
To: Liz
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-Ohio) was the prosecutor for the case, and she refused to allow it to go forward.
She was in the process of starting up her campaign for the House of Representatives, so this would have cramped her style. It was a huge national story, as the guy has been trying for decades to clear his father's name.
The new prosecutor, William Mason, finally sent it to trial, and Reese lost.
Wonder why Tubbs-Jones got cleared in this. She was obviously derelict in her duties. She, too, should have recused herself if she had no intention of following the rule of law.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson