Justices vote against Liddy in defamation suit
By Laurie Asseo, Associated Press, 01/18/00
WASHINGTON -- G. Gordon Liddy failed today in his Supreme Court bid to fend off a defamation lawsuit by a woman he linked to an alleged call-girl ring at the Democratic National Committee at the time of the 1972 Watergate break-in.
The court, without comment, rejected an appeal in which Liddy argued that the woman should be considered a public figure who would have to prove "actual malice" to win her lawsuit.
Liddy arranged the June 17, 1972, burglary of Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office building that led to President Nixon's 1974 resignation. He served four years and four months in prison and now is a radio talk-show host.
Liddy is among those who say the purpose of the break-in was not to repair a telephone tap installed earlier but to gather information on an alleged call-girl ring at the Democratic headquarters.
During public speeches, Liddy has said that DNC secretary Ida M. Wells' desk held photographs of prostitutes that were shown to visiting men.
Wells filed a $5 million lawsuit against Liddy in 1997, contending he defamed her by suggesting she procured prostitutes for DNC visitors.
A federal judge in Maryland ruled for Liddy. The judge said Wells must be considered an involuntary public figure who would have to prove that Liddy spoke with actual malice -- knowledge his statements were false or reckless disregard of whether they were true.
But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Wells' lawsuit, saying she was a private figure and need not meet that high standard of proof.
Private citizens need only prove that a statement was defamatory, false and made negligently.
An involuntary public figure is someone who tried to stay out of public discussion of an important controversy but nevertheless was a central character in that event, the appeals court said. Wells was only "a very minor figure" in Watergate, it added.
In the appeal acted on today, Liddy's lawyers said the 4th Circuit court's ruling will chill discussion of public events by making it easier for some people to sue.
Wells' lawyers urged the justices to reject Liddy's appeal. They said she played no role in Watergate aside from being "an innocent victim of (Liddy's) criminal activity."
The case is Liddy vs. Wells, 99-870.
