Re: 1/31/01 - Yale Daily News: Van de Velde lawsuits to test press' bounds
Published Wednesday, January 31, 2001
Van de Velde lawsuits to test press' bounds
BY ANDREW PACIOREK
YDN Staff Reporter
In pursuing his recently filed defamation lawsuits against Quinnipiac University and the Hartford Courant, James Van de Velde '82 is entering nearly uncharted legal territory in Connecticut.
Van de Velde, the only named suspect in the 1998 murder of Suzanne Jovin '99, sued Quinnipiac and the Courant this month over statements made about him two years ago. While the Quinnipiac suit may hinge simply on the truth of statements regarding Van de Velde's graduate work there, the Courant lawsuit calls into question the very nature of reporters' relationships with their sources, something that has never been directly addressed by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The lawsuit against the Courant argues the newspaper defamed Van de Velde by reporting the existence of two police complaints of harassment allegedly made against him by two female television news reporters. Van de Velde has denied the existence of the complaints and has said he has never harassed anyone.
While the Courant cited an unnamed police source for the information, the paper itself is ultimately responsible for the information it publishes, said journalism professor Jerry Dunklee, who teaches a class in media law at Southern Connecticut State University.
"In terms of standard practice, newspapers take that type of information from the police all the time," said William Dunlap, a professor at the Quinnipiac Law School. "Whether they should or not, I don't know."
That the Courant is standing by its story indicates the paper will probably rely on the first and most obvious defense against libel: truth. The first element in a libel action is that the objectionable statements actually be shown to be false by the plaintiff, in this case Van de Velde.
Each side will thus be able to conduct an extensive investigation of the other, deposing numerous witnesses in their search for the truth. Therein lies the proverbial rub.
Courts have ruled that the plaintiff in a libel case has the right to insist a defendant reveal anonymous sources for allegedly defamatory statements, Dunklee said.
That makes journalists thoroughly nervous.
"In this legal climate, we have to be ready to tell at least one person at the newsroom who our source is," Dunklee aid. "And sometimes we have to tell sources that if there's a libel action, we would be forced by the court to reveal them."
This rule could also have consequences in the Quinnipiac case, in that an unnamed source within the university gave the New Haven Register information regarding Van de Velde's dismissal from a Quinnipiac graduate program in broadcast journalism. The Register reported Van de Velde had been dropped from the program for failing to complete two internships, which Van de Velde denies.
Whether Van de Velde could force the Register, which is not currently being sued, to reveal its anonymous source is unclear.
On the other side, the Courant and Quinnipiac will be able to depose anyone from Van de Velde's past or present who might have knowledge pertaining to the lawsuits, potentially opening his personal life to an entirely new level of scrutiny.
Van de Velde's past is hardly a mystery, however. Reporters wrote long profiles about him after police identified him as a suspect in the Jovin murder investigation. He also underwent a thorough government background check when the security clearance for his Pentagon job was routinely reviewed last year.
Regardless, truth is certainly not the only defense the Courant's lawyers will have at their disposal. Because the paper cited a police source, it may be possible for the Courant to argue a valid official source gave them information and that its reporters believed the source.
One famous example of such a defense is that of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which is being sued by Richard Jewell over a series of articles calling him a suspect in the Olympic Park bombing during the 1996 Summer Olympics.
Shortly after the bombing, the Journal-Constitution cited an FBI source in reporting Jewell was a suspect in the bombing, making him a target of intense nationwide media scrutiny. Jewell was subsequently cleared.
The newspaper has argued the FBI was at fault for disseminating false information and that the paper should not be held liable for an important official source's error. But the case has yet to be decided, leaving yet another potential uncertainty in the Van de Velde lawsuit.
One thing is clear, however: With such important and previously undecided issues destined to be argued by top-flight attorneys, the two lawsuits will likely take years to decide.
"In both of these cases, they've got some pretty deep pockets and some pretty big guns," Dunklee said.
Reporters and their sources will be watching closely to see who wins the shoot-out.
yaledailynews.com |
