Murphy v. The Herald, the War Continues
It's the libel case that keeps on giving. After the Boston Herald was whacked with a $2.1 million Suffolk County jury verdict for Judge Ernest Murphy in February, today's news is that the paper is looking to overturn that decision, citing Murphy's efforts to intimidate it into giving up its right to appeal.
One notable difference between today's Herald story and Globe story is that the Globe was able to talk to Murphy attorney Howard Cooper while the Herald said Cooper could not be reached for comment. Despite being adversaries in the courtroom, let's hope that Cooper and the Herald haven't decided to snub each other.
The case itself was emotional, rugged, and bruising. Most observers started out believing Murphy faced a serious uphill battle largely because as a public figure, he would have to prove the Herald acted with malice. But as the trial progressed, one could see the momentum moving the plaintiff's way. And once the jury was out for five days, it was clear that Murphy was going to be getting some award.
I don't know that the letters the Herald said it received from Murphy should have any impact on the original outcome. And I'm no expert in the behind-the-scenes machinations that surround ligitation negotiation. But it sure seems inappropriate for a judge to be strong-arming the defendants in that fashion. (If nothing else, these kinds of communication are better handled in off-the-record chats, as opposed to paper trail-creating missives.)
One thing is certain. This fight is not over.
One notable difference between today's Herald story and Globe story is that the Globe was able to talk to Murphy attorney Howard Cooper while the Herald said Cooper could not be reached for comment. Despite being adversaries in the courtroom, let's hope that Cooper and the Herald haven't decided to snub each other.
The case itself was emotional, rugged, and bruising. Most observers started out believing Murphy faced a serious uphill battle largely because as a public figure, he would have to prove the Herald acted with malice. But as the trial progressed, one could see the momentum moving the plaintiff's way. And once the jury was out for five days, it was clear that Murphy was going to be getting some award.
I don't know that the letters the Herald said it received from Murphy should have any impact on the original outcome. And I'm no expert in the behind-the-scenes machinations that surround ligitation negotiation. But it sure seems inappropriate for a judge to be strong-arming the defendants in that fashion. (If nothing else, these kinds of communication are better handled in off-the-record chats, as opposed to paper trail-creating missives.)
One thing is certain. This fight is not over.
14 Comments:
Are you kidding, Mark? You don't know if the letters should have any impact? The guy tries to EXTORT Pat Purcell. Read the letters. He tells him to bring a cashier's check. To show up with only one other person. NOT his attorney. This is from a JUDGE? He should be removed from the bench immediately; his case should be thrown out anyway because the Herald criticized him in his capacity as a public official - Geez, you would think a flamin' media writer for the lefty rag in town would get those issues. Get off your Globe-lovin', Herald-hating ass and wake up.
Anonymous thanks. I always love those letters from Herald staffers. And my point is that whatever the judge's conduct is now doesn't change the circumstances of the initial verdict.
By filing the motion (and presumably losing for now) the Herald makes the letters part of its appeal. That means the SJC will have to explain why a judge was demanding $500,000 more than the verdict (with interest), why it is ok for a judge to demand that an adverse party show up at a meeting without telling their lawyers, and why the letters (on court stationery) don't show a lack of judicial temperment that is inconsistent with him recovering millions of dollars for being accused of lacking judicial termperment. It's not that the letters themselves change the initial verdict; it's more that it is harder to write a decision explaining why he is entitled to all that money when, in the same decision, the court has to explain why the letters are no big deal.
it's hard to see how these letters don't ruin the judge, in the court of public opinion, if nothing more. clearly, their tone now makes it very clear that the herald's original portrayal of the judge as an insensitive bully were on the mark, even if the specifics in some stories may have been flawed. people may hate the press, which accounts for the verdict. but they hate greedy public officials even more.
Well Mark, you knew that first posting didn't come from Murphy because all his notes are handwritten.
Mark,
First post was rude and insensitive but contained a germ of truth. If your first presumption is to presume the writer is a Herald staffer, you just made his point for him. People EXPECT articles like the one in question from the Herald, (albeit subject to legal and journalistic constraints). Can you honestly imagine a scenario where Murphy's letters would be appropriate? Murphy gave the Herald enough rope to hang themselves. The Herald returned the favor in kind. If you trust a MA politician (which Murphy effectively is) more than Wedge and guys like him, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.
Maybe I'm just dumb, but can someone explain to me something....?
Why would the judge be asking for a check in an amount of MORE than the verdict award?
Why would the Herald pay MORE that the 2 mill award?
Certainly they might expect to appeal the award and hopefully pay less.
I could see a situation where the judge says "Give me 75% of the award now...and we'll call it quits."
But asking for more?
Why would the judge ask for it?
The judge is, right this minute, entitled to his judgement plus interest at the statutory rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing, and the Herald could be hit with the costs of appeal. So his demand has some basis to it. The bullying seems to be from the Herald, which is using its presses to try to gain an advantage in the litigation by raising 'issues' that flat-out don't matter to the legal question of whether the verdict was or was not correct as a matter of law -- which is all that matters on appeal.
"Some basis" for the demand? Costs on appeal are copycharges and even in this case that won't be $500,000. And if the paper had paid the $3.2 million demand, there would have been no appeal, no costs and no future interest awarded. That just doesn't add up to a $500k premium.
This is getting like the Iran/Iraq War, where you want to see BOTH sides lose.
"I could see a situation where the judge says "Give me 75% of the award now...and we'll call it quits." But asking for more? Why would the judge ask for it?"
For the same reason MA pols do ANYTHING,10:36, because they CAN. My tax dollars maintain this guy's lifestyle in Dover. I think I need a shower.....
By the way, where else can you get 12% these days?
It's 12 percent from the date of filing the suit, which in this case was in in early June 2002. And that's $240,000 per year at simple interest. Even the Herald's insurance company estimates a two-year appeal process. TThat's three and a half years of interest until now, plus two years of interest during the appeal. The Herald is looking at a payout of $4.5 million.
P.S. when the judge asks for $3.2 million, he's asking for 71 per cent of the Herald's exposure.
P.S. when the judge asks for $3.2 million, he's asking for 71 per cent of the Herald's exposure.
Post a Comment
<< Home