Signs of the Times - WVIR-TV Argues to Overturn Verdict
July 2003
Media 2003: WVIR-TV Argues to Overturn Verdict
Search for:


Home

"Nearly two months after winning a $10 million defamation lawsuit against WVIR-TV, Jesse Sheckler was back in court Monday as lawyers for the television station argued to have the verdict overturned and a new trial set.

Circuit Judge Edward L. Hogshire heard two hours of arguments from WVIR attorney Thomas E. Albro and Sheckler's lawyer, Matthew B. Murray, and will consider whether a new trial should be granted.

The judge left some uncertainty as to when the parties can expect a decision, telling both sides that he will rule on the defense motion 'as soon as feasible.'

In Charlottesville Circuit Court on May 23, a seven-member jury found that WVIR defamed Sheckler, 52, in its reporting of a federal drug case in 2001. The jury then awarded the full amount of what the Greene County man sought in his suit: $10 million.

The jury found that the NBC affiliate incorrectly reported in news stories that authorities had confiscated cocaine during a raid at Sheckler's residence, even though no such raid ever took place and no cocaine was ever found.

Albro argued Monday that the jury's award was too high, and pointed out that victims of personal injury and wrongful death are often awarded a fraction of the money the jury awarded Sheckler, adding simply that 'the jury got it wrong.'

'Even a cursory glance at the evidence in this case shows that the amount of damages awarded were excessive,' Albro said.

Further, Albro argued the plaintiff failed to connect the damages sought to actual suffering. No medical expenses or loss of income were tied to the case, Albro said, and any stress Sheckler suffered at the time could have been the result of the federal drug case than pending against him.

Albro argued that WVIR's reporting was inextricably intertwined with what the government did and that the plantiff had not demonstrated that Sheckler would have been worse off than he would have been had the refererence to the confiscation not been included.

He said that the $10 million in damages was a punitive award masking as a compensatory award; that the verdict was punitive in nature and punitive in effect; and that the award had the potential for self-censorship.

Sheckler had been charged with helping to finance since-convicted drug dealer Samuel Rose after having loaned the man thousands of dollars. Sheckler was eventually acquitted, and has maintained that he was unaware of Rose's illegal affairs.

Murray defended the jury's verdict - and the six-woman, one-man jury itself - reminding the judge that the jurors had paid attention to the evidence, took notes and deliberated for three hours before returning with their decision.

'This was a cross-section of our well-educated and intelligent community,' Murray said.

Murray argued that there was no reason to second-guess the jury about damages. He said that the facts had been presented to 8 focus groups previous to the trial and that none of the focus groups had a problem with a multi-million dollar verdict.

He also compared the $10 million award in damages to what one might expect to receive from winning the lottery or from playing professional basketball or from being the CEO of a larger company.

While some might assert that the amount of salary compensation has gotten out of hand, he said that he believed these amounts reflect the individual contributions which people make to the community and the same could be said of the award to Sheckler - adding that there was no one in the courtroom who would trade their good reputation for $10 million dollars in return for being publically labeled a drug dealer.

At one point, he also told the judge that perhaps the plaintiff should have asked for an even larger amount.

Hogshire asked Murray how it could be determined that Sheckler's depression - his suffering of such stipulated by experts for both the plaintiff and defendant - was directly caused by the WVIR broadcast. Murray argued that the jury's finding should stand.

'It's over. It's over, judge,' Murray said. 'The jury made that decision for us. ...I suggest to the court that we ought not second-guess them. They did their job.' " (Liesel Nowak, The Daily Progress, July 22, 2003)

Editor's Note: For more on the case, see Index for Defamation Suit Against WVIR as Covered on Loper Web Site.

Comments? Questions? Write me at george@loper.org.