Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., et al.

Last updated

Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., et al. is a libel case brought by Judge Ernest B. Murphy against the Boston Herald and Dave Wedge which centers on a series of articles about the New Bedford Superior Court judge that were published by the Herald.

Contents

Background

Also named in the suit were Herald reporters and columnists Jules Crittenden, Margery Eagan and David Weber. According to official court documents, "at the close of the evidence, the trial judge entered judgment in favor of Eagan and Weber pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 50 (a), 365 Mass. 814 (1974). The jury returned their special verdict finding Crittenden not liable. None of the three is involved in this appeal." [1]

The Boston Herald published the first articles about Judge Murphy on February 13, 2002 in a front-page story that used the headline "Murphy's Law; Lenient judge frees dangerous criminals." [2] The article, written by Wedge and Crittenden, depicted Judge Murphy as "callously indifferent to victims" and quoted unnamed courthouse sources that claimed Judge Murphy had said about a rape victim: "'She's 14. She got raped. Tell her to get over it.'" [3]

Judge Murphy denied ever making the alleged rape comment but after the Herald published the stories he was "bombarded with hate mail, death threats and calls for his removal from the bench." Someone in a Boston Herald internet chatroom even said that Murphy's own daughters "should be raped." [4]

In June 2002, Judge Murphy filed suit against Wedge and the Herald claiming that his reputation had been damaged and that he had been emotionally scarred.

On March 7, 2002, Wedge appeared on Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor and said Judge Murphy coddled defendants and "caused headlines for making disparaging remarks to victims." Wedge's comments were cited as being "crucial" in Murphy's libel case against Wedge and the Herald. [5]

Trial

In January 2005, the case of Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., et al. began.

Wedge testified under oath that two sources told him about Judge Murphy's alleged comments regarding the 14-year-old rape victim. Wedge understood, according to his testimony, that these two sources were not present when the rape comment was allegedly made by Judge Murphy. According to Wedge, he then confirmed the quote with a third source who was present when Judge Murphy allegedly made the comment about the rape victim. He "refused to concede that his front-page story on Murphy was at all flawed." [6]

The court found Wedge's testimony in the trial to be "thoroughly and convincingly impeached by his own deposition testimony," which he gave in July and August 2002. At the deposition, "Wedge contradicted his trial testimony in every material respect." [1]

During the trial, the jury also heard testimony from Wedge's three sources, Bristol County District Attorney Paul F. Walsh, Jr. and Assistant District Attorneys Gerald Fitzgerald and David Crowley. Fitzgerald testified that he told Wedge that Judge Murphy said "tell her to get over it." Crowley, the source who claimed to be present when Murphy made the alleged comment, testified that "the gist of the quotes in what was said appear to be accurate," but that he did not remember Judge Murphy using the words "tell her." [7] Walsh said Crowley told him about Murphy's remarks in the lobby conference and acknowledged he did not know whether the judge said, "get over it," "she needs to get over it," or "tell her to get over it." [8]

Murphy testified that the quotes attributed to him by defense witnesses were "absolutely preposterous."

In February 2005, the jury found that the Boston Herald and David Wedge had defamed Judge Murphy and published false information about him. The jury awarded Murphy $2.09 million in compensatory damages, an award later reduced to $2.01 million.

Shortly after the verdict, in an apparent attempt at "bullying" the Herald into a settlement, Judge Murphy wrote two letters on court letterhead to Herald publisher Patrick Purcell, demanding the publisher meet with him and deliver a $3.26 million check. [9]

Appeal

The Herald appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, but on May 7, 2007 the court upheld the verdict.

In a unanimous decision "sharply critical of the newspaper and its reporter, David Wedge," [5] the Supreme Judicial Court said "there is an abundance of evidence that, taken cumulatively, provides clear and convincing proof that the defendants either knew that the published statements found by the jury to be libelous were untrue or that they published them in reckless disregard of the probable falsity." [1]

The court found the evidence in the case supported the jury's verdict of actual malice. The Supreme Judicial Court opinion, written by Justice John Greaney, said that "by the end of Wedge's testimony, his credibility on any material factual point at issue was in tatters." [1]

Reaction and response

In the wake of the failed appeal, Boston Herald publisher Patrick Purcell released a statement saying "We are disappointed with the Supreme Judicial Court's relentlessly one-sided view of Dave Wedge's reporting on a public controversy within the judicial system, and are unwavering in our complete confidence in Wedge's journalistic skills." [10] Purcell referred to the letters he received from Judge Murphy saying, Murphy "correctly predicted the Herald had 'zero chance' that his colleagues on the bench would side with the Herald rather than one of their own" and that "no shred of evidence exists, as Justice Greaney alleged in his opinion, that Wedge altered the quotation provided by his trusted sources."

Wedge released his own public statement in which he "vehemently" disagreed with the SJC's decision and continued to "firmly stand by" his reporting on the stories.[ citation needed ]

On May 21, 2007, the Herald filed a petition requesting the court reconsider its decision, alleging that the SJC judges made several errors in their ruling, including misquoting Crowley's testimony and erroneously suggesting that Crowley said he heard Murphy make a sympathetic-sounding comment. [11] The SJC acknowledged the error, as well as others, and corrected the record but denied the Herald's motion to reconsider, ending the case in the state's courts. The Herald paid Judge Murphy $3.4 million on June 7 to cover the jury award plus interest.

On July 10, the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct charged Judge Murphy with ethical violations including "willful misconduct" for the controversial letters he sent to Purcell. [12] The CJC held a public hearing on Murphy's letters on October 15. [13]

Murphy claimed in August that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and asked Governor Deval Patrick to retire him early with a full pension, even though he hadn't earned retirement benefits. Patrick denied the request. [14] The judge also filed a $6.8 million suit against the Herald's insurance company, claiming that the libel case should have been settled. [15]

In November the CJC issued a 27-page report that found Murphy's letters to Purcell were "improper in tone and content" and recommended a public reprimand. [16] The CJC recommended a 30-day suspension, a $25,000 fine and a public censure for Murphy for the letters. In August 2008, Judge Murphy and the CJC reached an agreement that he was "permanently disabled" and he stepped down from the bench. [17]

In September 2012, the SJC ruled that Murphy was not entitled to a disability pension. [18]

Related Research Articles

Sacco and Vanzetti Italian American anarchist duo executed by Massachusetts

Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two Italian migrant anarchists who were controversially convicted of murdering a guard and a paymaster during the April 15, 1920, armed robbery of the Slater and Morrill Shoe Company in Braintree, Massachusetts, United States. Seven years later, they were electrocuted in the electric chair at Charlestown State Prison. Both men adhered to an anarchist movement.

Scottsboro Boys Nine African American teenagers falsely accused of rape in 1931

The Scottsboro Boys were nine African American teenagers, ages 13 to 20, falsely accused in Alabama of raping two white women on a train in 1931. The landmark set of legal cases from this incident dealt with racism and the right to a fair trial. The cases included a lynch mob before the suspects had been indicted, all-white juries, rushed trials, and disruptive mobs. It is commonly cited as an example of a miscarriage of justice in the United States legal system.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court the highest court in the U.S. state of Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The SJC claims the distinction of being the oldest continuously functioning appellate court in the Americas, with a recognized history dating to the establishment of the Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature in 1692 under the charter of the Province of Massachusetts Bay.

Thomas Michael Finneran, is a radio talk host and former Massachusetts Democratic politician who served as Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives from April 1996 to September 2004. He represented the district that included parts of the Boston neighborhoods of Dorchester, Mattapan and Hyde Park as well as parts of the town of Milton for 26 years.

Paul Richard Shanley is a laicized American priest who was accused and convicted of raping a child. He served at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts and was a prominent figure in the Boston clergy sex abuse scandal. In 2005, he was incarcerated as inmate W84979 at Old Colony Correctional Center for raping a child in 1980; he was released in 2017.

Fells Acres Day Care Center was located in Malden, Massachusetts, in the United States and was part of the day care sex abuse hysteria of the 1980s. Violet Amirault (1923–1997) opened the facility in 1966.

<i>United States v. Libby</i>

United States v. Libby was the federal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former high-ranking official in the George W. Bush administration, for interfering with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame affair.

Maria Lopez is a Cuban-American former judge and a former television jurist on the syndicated court show, Judge Maria Lopez.

David M. Wedge is a New York Times bestselling author, journalist and award-winning former reporter for the Boston Herald.

Benjamin LaGuer is a convicted rapist serving a life sentence in Massachusetts. He has not acknowledged the crime for which he was convicted, claiming innocence. His case achieved prominence in the late 1980s when reporting by John King discovered a juror who said that other members of the all-white-male jury uttered racist slurs before and during deliberations. His case became a flashpoint in the 2006 race for Massachusetts Governor when it was revealed that Deval Patrick, the Democratic candidate, had corresponded with and supported the inmate over a period of several years.

Haleigh Poutre is an American woman who became the subject of a legal controversy regarding the removal of life support for patients in persistent vegetative states. In 2006, eleven-year-old Poutre awoke from a coma shortly before she was scheduled to be removed from life support. Poutre had a severe brain injury thought to be caused by abuse by her adoptive mother. The case brought about many changes in the Massachusetts Department of Social Services, both in the way they handle reports of child abuse as well as their policies on end-of-life care for children in their custody.

Sharon Faye Keller is the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest tribunal for criminal matters in the U.S. state of Texas. She is a Republican.

Barry Bonds perjury case

The Barry Bonds perjury case was a case of alleged perjury regarding use of anabolic steroids by former San Francisco Giants outfielder and all-time Major League Baseball career home run leader, Barry Bonds, and the related investigations surrounding these accusations. On April 13, 2011, Bonds was convicted of one felony count of obstruction of justice for giving an incomplete answer to a question in grand jury testimony. A mistrial was declared on the remaining three counts of perjury, and those charges were dropped. The obstruction of justice conviction was upheld by an appellate panel in 2013, but a larger panel of the appellate court overturned the conviction in 2015.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6-2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

Chuck Turner was an American politician, activist, and convicted felon, who served on the Boston City Council representing District 7. Turner was a member of the Green-Rainbow Party Massachusetts affiliate to the national Green Party. In 2010, Turner was convicted of accepting a bribe and sentenced to three years in prison; he was expelled from the City Council.

Trial of George Zimmerman 2013 murder trial in Florida, United States

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman was a criminal prosecution of George Zimmerman on the charge of second-degree murder stemming from the shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012.

Lisa J. Steele is a game designer and an attorney.

Robin Camp is a former Canadian Federal Court judge. Camp was the subject of a high-profile removal hearing before the Canadian Judicial Council for his role in a 2014 sexual assault trial that he presided over, which later recommended that he be removed from the bench.

<i>Ellis v. United States of America</i> (1969) case decided by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in 1969. It addressed the question of a witnesss refusal to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds

Ellis v. United States of America, 416 F.2d 791, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in 1969. It addressed the question of a witness's refusal to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court concluded that when a non-indicted witness who has waived their Fifth Amendment privilege by testifying voluntarily before a grand jury and with knowledge of their privilege, their waiver extends to a subsequent trial based on an indictment returned by the grand jury that heard their testimony.

Barfod v. Denmark (1989), was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights ruling against Barfod in his accusation that the Danish government was not protecting his freedom of expression when writing an article suggesting that the judges who ruled in a specific case were incompetent to make fair and just decisions. The defendant was convicted on the basis that he wrote in the publication “Grønland Dansk” that two of the judges who, were deciding in a case regarding taxation of Danish nationals working on a base in Greenland, were biased in deciding the case. Mr. Barfod wrote, “Most of the Local Government’s members could ... afford the time to watch that the two Greenland lay judges - who are by the way both employed directly by the Local Government, as director of a museum and as consultant in urban housing affairs - did their duty, and this they did. The vote was two to one in favor of the Local Government and with such a bench of judges it does not require much imagination to guess who voted how." This accusation was seen as a potential for damage to their reputation therefore “the applicant was subsequently charged with defamation of character within the meaning of Article 71(1) of the Greenland Penal Code before the District Court of Narssaq” This case was then appealed and brought to the High Court for Eastern Denmark to then eventually be brought before the High Court of Greenland as it more formally fit the case. They once again did not side with Mr. Barfod. On October 16, 1987 the case was brought to the European Court of Human Rights. In a 6 to 1 decision the court found that there was no violation to Mr. Barfod’s right to freedom of speech.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Ernest B. Murphy vs. Boston Herald, Inc., & another.
  2. ↑ Dave Wedge, "Murphy's Law; Lenient judge frees dangerous criminals," Boston Herald , February 13, 2002.
  3. ↑ Adam Reilly, "Judge Dread: The SJC’s libel ruling won’t cripple the media — but it could seriously hurt the Herald," Boston Phoenix , May 9, 2007.
  4. ↑ Ken Maguire, "Judge's Libel Suit Against Boston Herald Begins," Law.com, January 24, 2005.
  5. 1 2 Pam Belluck, "Judge's Libel Victory Against Paper Is Upheld," New York Times , May 8, 2007.
  6. ↑ . Archived September 24, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  7. ↑ Greg Gatlin, "Herald source heard second-hand comment," Boston Herald, February 10, 2005.
  8. ↑ Mark Jurkowitz, "Witness testifies about Herald quotes," Boston Globe , February 9, 2005.
  9. ↑ Ralph Ranalli, "Herald fights $2m libel verdict; Says judge wrote 'bullying' letters," Boston Globe, December 21, 2005.
  10. ↑ Jesse Noyes, "SJC upholds judge's libel case vs. Herald," Boston Herald, May 8, 2007.
  11. ↑ "Boston Herald asks SJC to reconsider libel ruling Archived 2011-07-19 at the Wayback Machine ," WHDH-TV , May 21, 2007.
  12. ↑ Raja Mishra, "Judge who won libel lawsuit faces ethics charges; Commission says he tried to bully Herald," Boston Globe, July 11, 2007.
  13. ↑ Jessica Van Sack and Joe Dwinell, "CJC public hearing set on Judge Murphy misconduct charges," Boston Herald, October 5, 2007.
  14. ↑ Frank Phillips, "Judge in Herald case asks early retirement; Patrick rejects claims of stress," Boston Globe, August 2, 2007.
  15. ↑ Shelley Murphy, "Judge seeks $6.8 million from Herald's insurer; Cites failure to settle defamation case," Boston Globe, August 18, 2007.
  16. ↑ Andrew Ryan, "Report urges public reprimand for judge; Says two letters to newspaper were improper," Boston Globe, November 22, 2007.
  17. ↑ Shelley Murphy, "Judge Murphy agrees to leave the bench," Boston Globe, August 20, 2008.
  18. ↑ "SJC: Former Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy is not entitled to disability pension". 31 August 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.