Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: USMCMP5811

High court upholds judge's libel judgment against Boston Herald


BOSTON -- The state's highest court on Monday upheld a $2 million verdict against the Boston Herald won by a Superior Court judge who said the newspaper libelously depicted him as soft on crime and insensitive to the suffering of a 14-year-old rape victim.
In February 2005, a jury found the newspaper had libeled Judge Ernest Murphy in a series of articles. Murphy said a Herald reporter misquoted him as telling lawyers involved in a case about the rape victim: "Tell her to get over it." Murphy denied ever making the statement.
In its appeal, attorneys for the Herald and its reporter, David Wedge, said Wedge did everything he could to ensure the stories were accurate, including twice trying to get comment from the judge himself.
But Murphy's attorneys said Wedge got numerous details wrong and depicted Murphy as a heartless judge who demeaned the rape victim.
On Monday, the SJC said the press has the right -- and even a duty -- to examine the judicial branch of government and to criticize judges and other court officials.
"The press, however, 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," the court said in its written ruling.
Patrick Purcell, president and publisher of the Herald, said the paper was "unwavering" in its support of Wedge and called the SJC's view of his reporting "relentlessly one-sided."
"In one of his threatening letters to me, Judge Murphy correctly predicted the Herald had 'zero chance' that his colleagues on the bench would side with the Herald rather than one of their own," Purcell in a statement posted on the newspaper's web site.
Wedge said his reporting was accurate.
"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," he said.
Murphy refused to answer questions, citing further possibility of appeal. At a news conference with his lawyers, the judge said the most troubling aspect of the case was that the rape victim and her family believed he had made the remarks attributed to him by the Herald when he said he had been "very compassionate and very concerned about her."
"I'm obviously extremely gratified that the Supreme Judicial Court has vindicated my pursuit of justice in this matter," Murphy said.
On Feb. 13, 2002, the Herald published the first in a series of articles on Murphy, using the headlines "Murphy's Law" and "Lenient judge frees dangerous criminals." The article, quoting unnamed courthouse sources, said Murphy said of the teenage rape victim: "She can't go through life as a victim. She's (14). She got raped. Tell her to get over it."
The article said Murphy made the statements when prosecutors in New Bedford Superior Court confronted him over his lenient sentencing practices. It said the judge also "belittled" a 79-year-old robbery victim when prosecutors asked for a tough jail term for her attackers.
Murphy sued the newspaper, alleging the stories were false and had damaged his reputation.
A jury found the newspaper had defamed Murphy and awarded him $2.09 million in compensatory damages, which was later reduced to $2.01 million. The award, if it is not further appealed, would now be worth just under $3.4 million with accrued interest, according to Murphy's lawyers.
During the trial, Wedge testified he was told about the "tell her to get over it" comment by former Bristol District Attorney Paul Walsh and an assistant district attorney. Wedge said he was aware that neither of them heard the comment directly, but said he confirmed it with Assistant District Attorney David Crowley, who was present when Murphy allegedly made the comment.
The SJC, however, said Wedge's trial testimony contradicted statements he made during a deposition he gave in 2002, when he said he did not meet with Crowley and thus did not confirm the accuracy of Murphy's alleged statement with any firsthand witness until after the statement was published in the article.
Wedge also said during his deposition that his sources for Murphy's statement used slightly different words than he reported. At one point, Wedge said all three sources had told him Murphy had said, "She's a (14-year-old) girl, she got raped, she's got to get on with her life and get over it."
"It is fair to say that, by the end of Wedge's testimony, his credibility on any material factual point at issue was in tatters," Justice John Greaney wrote for the court in the 5-0 decision.
The Herald's lawyers argued that Wedge's article correctly captured the gist or tone of the statements made by Murphy. But the SJC said the difference between the statement the Herald reported -- "tell her to get over it" -- and what Crowley said Murphy said -- "she needs to get on with her life and get over it" -- cannot be characterized "as a minor discrepancy protected by the First Amendment."
The court said Wedge's "lack of candor" on the witness stand "strongly supports the inference that he deliberately attempted to mislead the jury."
The court said that while disbelief in Wedge's testimony alone would not be enough to uphold the libel verdict, the evidence in the case supported the jury's finding of actual malice, meaning Wedge and the Herald either knew the published statements were untrue or published them in "reckless disregard of their probable falsity."


http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO51473/

---

Posted by: Delta784

A bunch of judges took the side of another judge.

I'm underwhelmed.

---

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784 A bunch of judges took the side of another judge. I'm underwhelmed.

Would you be equally "underwhelmed" if you were the target of career damaging false accusations and lies? I think not.

The decision is probably one of the better ones ever made by the judges involved. Unless and until reporters and editors are held accountable for their blatant lies published on a routine basis in newspapers all over the world, they will continue to harm others with their "spin". Fact and truth are not two of their highest virtues and its about time they paid for their willful actions.

---

Posted by: Delta784

Judges cannot be sued for their decisions, so in my opinion, they shouldn't be able to sue others for their decisions.

I trust reporters a hell of a lot more than I trust MA judges.

---

Posted by: dcs2244

I'm not surprised that the judges found for their own, but I think it puts the media on notice: if they are going to screw with failed defense lawyers (i.e.: MA judges), they better turn-to on their fact checking. Naturally they will still be able to print anything they want about President Bush, Republicans in general and the GWOT, whether it's true or made up from whole cloth.

Pending in June: The case of the judge with the $67 million pair of pants...will the court find in his favor? (Probably not...I just read that he was not re-appointed, so he's no longer a member of "The Club")

</IMG>

---

Posted by: Deuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFAfan Would you be equally "underwhelmed" if you were the target of career damaging false accusations and lies? I think not.

You mean every time some sh1tstain files an IA complaint because I didn't talk to him/her nicely? Or because said stain got a ticket and thought it was (a) racism, (b) not them, (c) faulty equipment or (d) the cop's just a dick? Or maybe fucko did it because he/she thought it would help toward their criminal case? Then again, maybe my career could come to an end by lies from a loser scumbag that decided he/she wasn't going to jail w/o a fight and in turn got what he/she deserved.

I would be underwhelmed if a judge or jury didn't side with the scumbag because they haven't a friggin clue what happens in the real world. Nor does IA. And apparently neither do you...

---

Posted by: sempergumby

Fuck The Press

---

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce You mean every time some sh1tstain files an IA complaint because I didn't talk to him/her nicely? Or because said stain got a ticket and thought it was (a) racism, (b) not them, (c) faulty equipment or (d) the cop's just a dick? Or maybe fucko did it because he/she thought it would help toward their criminal case? Then again, maybe my career could come to an end by lies from a loser scumbag that decided he/she wasn't going to jail w/o a fight and in turn got what he/she deserved. I would be underwhelmed if a judge or jury didn't side with the scumbag because they haven't a friggin clue what happens in the real world. Nor does IA. And apparently neither do you...

Please
Sounds like someone needs a career change or at the very least a loooooong vacation.

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

The judges are not gods,even though they think they are.

---

Posted by: Mikey682

Herald credibility/journalistic ethics in question? SHHHOCKKING!!!!!

---

Posted by: Deuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFAfan Please Sounds like someone needs a career change or at the very least a loooooong vacation.

And you sound like a remf /pog... No offense intended though, every place needs chairborne warriors that prefer the dangers of paper cuts over road work. I salute you sir...

---

Posted by: dcs2244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce And you sound like a remf /pog... No offense intended though, every place needs chairborne warriors that prefer the dangers of paper cuts over road work. I salute you sir...

Too right, Deuce! I've had my families honor attacked twice by lying white trash...all in the pursuit of a blatant "money grab". They sue and expect the job to roll over and play dead: they know it's less expensive to settle than to fight. In both of my cases, the employer chose to fight. I'm 2-0. Eff the lemmings.

Now, for all you holier-than-thou "at least I got a drunk off the street" even though he was found NG: the jury just called you a liar. They believed the drunk...not the cop. I hope you are able to justify in your simple mind that hey, you did your job...a drunk is off the road...but the jury has rejected your credibility and called you a liar.

Let the lemming have their wish: lock the drunk up when you have no choice...do not hunt them as we did back in the day: when the deaths occur, call me...I have no problem speaking plain english to the lemming media: "You wanted it, you got it. Toyota.".

</IMG>
People must realize they get what they vote for...

---

Posted by: KozmoKramer

Although our judicial system is unquestionably the finest in the world, I lost a little respect and appreciation for it, especially judges after judge Zoebel in 1997 told 12 American citizens their guilty verdict was meaningless.
It was a travesty of justice for the victim’s family, truly disgusting.

---

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Screw the Herald, great decision.

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

Judge set man free due to tardy witness


Photo by Herald File
Judge Ernest B. Murphy

The Supreme Judicial Court has reversed a decision by Judge Ernest B. Murphy, who found an accused child molester not guilty after the alleged young victim went to the wrong courtroom and waited there for several hours, missing the start of the trial.
The SJC ruled Murphy “improperly entered” the not guilty finding last March before evidence and opening statements were presented.
Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr. successfully argued Murphy “abused his discretion” and “committed errors of law” in setting the alleged child abuser free, according to court papers.
“The district attorney felt this case should have been heard and disagreed with the judge’s decision and the SJC agreed, so we will try the case,” Tim Connolly, spokesman for Early, told the Herald yesterday.
Murphy faces misconduct charges before the Commission on Judicial Conduct for sending letters on judicial stationery to Herald Publisher Patrick J. Purcell after winning a 2005 libel verdict against the paper following a series of critical stories.
The commission has until early April to rule on a hearing examiner’s recommendations that Murphy be publicly reprimanded for sending the “threatening” letters. Murphy is still out on “accrued time” from his $129,694-a-year post, according to court officials.
Murphy’s attorney Michael E. Mone said yesterday, “Lots of judges get overturned all the time.” He declined to comment further.
The SJC added that in ordering a new trial for the accused, Steven Lucero, there will be no “double jeopardy” because “no evidence had been presented.”
Webster police told the Herald yesterday Lucero was first charged with four counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 in April of 2004.
The victim took last March 12 off from school to testify against Lucero, according to Early, and reported to Probate Court at 8:30 a.m. “waiting to be called” only to discover hours later that she had reported to the wrong courtroom.
According to the commonwealth’s brief, Murphy told prosecutors seeking a delay that day: “No, no. Counsel with all due respect, this case was on for trial at 10 o’clock in the morning and she did not appear.”

http://bostonherald.com/news/regiona...icleid=1075389

---

Posted by: KozmoKramer

How did that clown (or the rest of the un-flushed criminal coddler's) ever become judges in the Commonwealth? Political hackery?
Maria Lopez? Ernie Murphy? Kathleen Tutman? Richard Moses?
Not exactly the "Best and Brightest" are they.

---

Posted by: 94c

So the guy has a law degree. Woop-Dee-Doo.

A judgeship is the biggest political hack job in this state.

I've said it for years, we need an oversight committee to keep track of how many times a judge gets overturned both in favor, and against, the police.

Many cases are lost due to incompetence and the commonwealth's failure to appeal these decisions.

These guys use college interns to research their case law in reaching their final decisions.

Do you really think a judge stays up late at night studying the constantly evolving law?

---

Posted by: MM1799

Quote:

...a decision by Judge Ernest B. Murphy, who found an accused child molester not guilty after the alleged young victim went to the wrong courtroom and waited there for several hours, missing the start of the trial.

So let me get this straight. The victim has the courage to show up and face his/her molester and put "it" in jail, subsequently gets lost in the court house and this judge ruled in favor of the animal and blamed the victim?

I sincerely hope this "young victim" grows up, meets this judge and knocks him the fuck out.

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

Judge Ernest B. Murphy’s off bench for good



Photo by Ted Fitzgerald (file)
Judge Ernest B. Murphy

Judge Ernest B. Murphy has agreed to step down from the bench because he is “permanently disabled from performing his judicial duties,” the state’s highest court stated yesterday.
The ruling stems from a new and previously unknown complaint against the long-embroiled Murphy, who still faces a misconduct case based on allegedly threatening letters sent to the publisher of the Boston Herald in 2005 after the judge won a libel verdict.
The complaint, filed by the Commission on Judicial Conduct on Oct. 11, alleged he “suffers from physical and/or mental disabilities that affect his performance.”
According to a statement of allegations by Commission Acting Chairman Stephen E. Neel dated June 23, Murphy “suffers from a combination of personality factors and cognitive deficits that adversely affect his fitness to be a judge.
“Specifically, neurocognitive, neuropsychiatric and personality factors constitute likely bases for inappropriate behavior and failure to make sound decisions on which to rest judicial rulings. In addition, Judge Murphy lacks the insight to recognize these deficits.”
The CJC’s new complaint did not allege Murphy was guilty of misconduct or violated any codes of conduct.
Murphy has long claimed he suffers from stress-related disabilities triggered by the fallout from stories the Herald published about him in 2002. All told, Murphy received $3.4 million from the paper.
He has collected his full $129,694 salary for more than a year while off the bench.
Murphy asked the Supreme Judicial Court to allow him to remain on paid leave until he retired or was granted a disability pension. But the SJC rejected that request, saying in the ruling released yesterday that Murphy’s pay will cease in 120 days.
Howard Neff, attorney for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, would not say what prompted the commission’s newly disclosed complaint nor comment on the evidence, much of which is impounded because it is medical information.
Neel’s statement of allegations indicates that Murphy was given a choice of three medical examiners to evaluate him and he chose Thomas G. Gutheil, a forensic psychiatrist who provided a report that supported the commission’s allegations.
On Aug. 1, 2007, Gov. Deval Patrick rejected Murphy’s bid for a special judicial disability pension. It would have paid him 75 percent of his annual salary.
An administration official told the Herald yesterday that nothing prohibits Murphy from making another request. But whether the SJC’s designation of him as “permanently disabled” would bolster that request is unknown.
Murphy also could seek disability pension through the state retirement board.
Although no longer employed as a judge, officials indicated that Murphy still retains the title. Only the governor, Goveror’s Council and the Legislature have the power to strip him of that title.
In a June hearing before the SJC, Murphy’s attorney, Michael E. Mone, indicated that the judge suffered from “a condition that not only was not known to me but that is totally different than the condition” previously claimed by Murphy.
“I’m not a doctor, but my reading of this is that it’s not some late-blooming condition,” Judge Margot Botsford said at the hearing.


Judge Murphy final submission:

• + Murphy wanted attorney on taxpayer dime
• + Judge Murphy: From start to finish
• + Judge Murphy press release (PDF)
• + CJC Final Submission: Judge Murphy (PDF)

http://bostonherald.com/news/regiona...ome&position=0

---

Posted by: lawdog671

“suffers from a combination of personality factors and cognitive deficits that adversely affect his fitness to be a judge."

HAHA......one could argue this could be applied to any judge......

“suffers from a combination of personality factors and cognitive deficits that adversely affect his fitness to be a judge."

HAHA......one could argue this could be applied to any judge......

---

Posted by: OCKS

Maybe he can get a job as a firefighter.

---

Posted by: dcs2244

I heard 'The People's Court' is hiring...

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser