Thursday, 4:30 PM
SJC affirms Herald libel verdict
(AP File Photo/Michael Dwyer)
The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the ruling of a jury that the Boston Herald libeled Judge Ernest B. Murphy, shown above in a 2005 file photo.
By Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff
The state's highest court affirmed a $2 million libel judgment against the Boston Herald today for a series of articles that included factual mistakes in the portrayal of a Superior Court judge as soft on criminals and insensitive to victims.
In a strongly worded unanimous opinion, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld a jury's ruling in February 2005 that the Herald and staff reporter David Wedge libeled Judge Ernest B. Murphy in a series of reports that began with front-page story headlined "Murphy's Law." The 2002 series criticized the superior court judge's sentencing practices as lenient and contained several explosive quotes attributed to him by unnamed sources.
"The press ... is not free to publish false information about anyone (even a judge whose sentencing decisions have incurred the wrath of the local district attorney), intending that it will cause a public furor, while knowing, or in reckless disregard of, its falsity," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the opinion for the court.
In a statement released this afternoon, Herald Publisher Patrick J. Purcell blasted the court's decision and defended Wedge.
"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," Purcell said. "While we are deeply troubled by the SJC’s decision, it will in no way affect our newsgathering operation and we will continue to bring readers thorough and relevant enterprise stories and public criticism of judges."
In his own statement released by the Herald, Wedge said: "As I have since the beginning of this case, I continue to firmly stand behind my reporting on these stories. Any insinuation by anyone, including the SJC, that anything in any of the stories on Judge Murphy was fabricated is completely reckless, irresponsible and untrue and is not borne out by the facts of the case."
The libel case centered on reports by Wedge that prosecutors in New Bedford had confronted Murphy over his alleged leniency toward offenders and on a statement -- attributed to the judge by anonymous sources and quoted by Wedge in the Herald -- that a teen rape victim should "get over it."
The SJC ruled that, "The jury found, and we agree, that there was, in fact, no legitimate basis for reporting in the Herald that: the plaintiff stated of a young rape victim, "She's [fourteen]. She got raped. Tell her to get over it.'"
Murphy denied making those remarks and said the articles ruined his health and reputation. Because Murphy is a public official, his lawyers had to prove not just that the stories were false and defamatory, but also that the Herald acted with malice and aware that the material it was publishing was likely false.
The Herald appealed the verdict, and in February lawyers for the paper argued before the SJC that Wedge did everything he could to ensure the stories were accurate, including twice trying to get comment from the judge himself. Bruce W. Sanford, an attorney for the Herald, said reliable sources had told Wedge that the judge made the remark.
During oral arguments in the appeal, Justice Judith A. Cowin asked why Wedge had not gone to greater lengths to verify the quotation as she highlighted other factual errors in his work. Lawyers for the Herald argued that the other mistakes were technical inaccuracies not germane to the question of libel.
Justice Roderick L. Ireland asked about testimony that Wedge gave during the trial in which he said he routinely threw away notes from stories when he no longer needed them. Ireland wanted to know why, if he was aware within days that the judge disputed the comments attributed to him in the newspaper, would Wedge discard his notes from the Murphy series.
"Couldn't this be interpreted as an indication of malice?" Ireland said.
In its written opinion today, the SJC discounted the testimony of Wedge, writing that the reporter's testimony contradicted depositions he gave before trial.
"Wedge's lack of candor on the witness stand strongly supports the inference that he deliberately attempted to mislead the jury," the opinion says. "Although disbelief in Wedge's testimony alone is not sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff ... 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 their probable falsity."
The opinion was signed by five members of the court. Justice Robert J. Cordy recused himself from the case because he said he was friends Purcell, the publisher, and other people at the Herald.
