Thursday, 4:30 PM
Judge in Herald libel case defends his actions
(Dina Rudick/Globe Staff)
Judge Ernest B. Murphy at work in 2005.
By John R. Ellement and Shelley Murphy, Globe Staff
Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy said today he tried to convince Boston Herald publisher Patrick J. Purcell to settle a libel lawsuit because the judge believed the newspaper was making a "great big mistake."
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct is considering whether Murphy violated ethics rules for judges by sending a letter on court stationery to Purcell at a time they were locked in litigation.
Murphy testified today before a hearing officer that he believed Purcell was "an honorable man" who was getting bad legal advice about the validity of Murphy's libel claims.
In 2005, a Superior Court jury awarded Murphy $2.01 million after finding that the Herald had libeled him in a series of stories. Murphy wrote the letter after the jury verdict. The newspaper went on to appeal the decision, eventually losing in the state Supreme Judicial Court.
Murphy said that he wrote the letter to get Purcell to "wake up and smell the coffee." Murphy said it was clear that the verdict would not get overturned and he wanted to get the case over with.
"I was trying to get my family out of this thing. That’s why I wrote the letter," Murphy said.
Purcell, who also testified today, had a different view of the letter. He said that when he received it in February 2005, "I couldn't believe I was getting this from a judge.To me it looked like a ransom note. It was very strange.'"
He said he viewed the letters as a threat and an effort to intimidate the Herald into abandoning its effort to appeal.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct filed charges in July, alleging that Murphy's letter to the Herald constituted "willful misconduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute."
Murphy told the newspaper in his letter, "You will bring to that meeting a cashiers check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000. No check, no meeting." He also wrote that it was in Purcell's "distinct business interests" to give him the money.
A one-page postscript warned Purcell that telling anyone about the letter would be "a BIG mistake." The Herald printed it on its front page.
Murphy received $3.41 million in June, which covered the award and the accrued interest.
The dispute began when the Herald published a series of articles that portrayed Murphy as being soft on crime. The stories contained several explosive quotes attributed to Murphy by unnamed sources.
Purcell said he still stood by the story and didn't believe the newspaper owed Murphy an apology.
"I have believed all along that we did our job and that we had the story correct," Purcell said. "I have continued to have faith in our reporters and our coverage of this story and I stand by it today."
After hearing the evidence, the adminstrative hearing officer will make a recommendation to the commission.
