HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Saturday, April 20,1991
Ex-DA wins $58 million libel award
By Roy Bragg
Waco – A sobbing Vic Feazell invited jurors out for a drink Friday after they returned a $58 million libel judgment against a Dallas television station and former reporter Charles Duncan.
A New York organization that monitors libel actions said the judgment was the largest in U.S. history. Duncan and WFAA-TV attorneys Tom Leatherbury and John McElhaney seemed shocked after the verdict, leaving the courtroom without comment. Supporters of the former McLennan County district attorney wept and applauded.
The jury found the nine of 11 reports on Feazell in 1985, focusing on rumors of kickbacks in exchange for preferential treatment of criminals and suggesting Feazell was soft on drug offenders, defamed the former Baptist minister and were broadcast with malice.
Jurors mostly were silent after the verdict. One, however, mumbled “Justice was served” as he left the building. Many jurors planned to join Feazell at a victory celebration later at a Waco hotel bar.
Mike McCarthy, senior vice president and general counsel of A.H. Belo Corp., which owns WFAA, said the verdict will be challenged.
“The company believes there is absolutely no factual basis to support this jury verdict, which involves a public official,” McCarthy said.
“We will obviously pursue all available post-trial motions, and, if necessary, appeal.”
The award dwarfs the previous all-time high, a $34 million judgment against the Philadelphia Inquirer in favor of lawyer Richard Sprague over a 1973 story critical of his handling of a homicide case when he was an assistant district attorney.
Don Tomlinson, a Texas A&M University journalism professor, said the ruling has the potential to stifle some investigative reporting because its size casts doubts in the minds of reporters, editors and broadcasters.
The jury awarded Feazell $17 million for damage to his reputation and business and for suffering humiliation, and $41 million in exemplary - or punitive – damages.
The award, Tomlinson said, will likely be reduced on appeal, as is typically the case.
“The overall pattern of this high damage award is that there is a chilling effect on the news media,” said Henry R. Kaufman, general counsel for the Libel Defense Resource Center, a New York City based organization which monitors media lawsuits.
“I think there’s also a chilling effect generally on the public at large (when it wants) to speak out on the issues. It just points out that there is a high price tag that can be placed on speech.”
Libel awards average $2.5 millions nationally, Kaufman said. Most large judgments are reduced, on the average, to $150,000. The largest ever to stand after appeal was $3 million.
Feazell, McLennan County’s chief prosecutor 1982-88,thanked God; his wife, Bernie; and attorney Gary Richardson.
“There are 24 very special people in this state,” Feazell told the nine-woman, three-man panel that sat through six weeks of testimony here. “You’re 12 of them.” The other 12, he said were the Austin jury that found him not guilty in 1987.
“I’m proud to be an American because only in America can a wrong like this be made right.” He said. Some jurors wept and others fought back tears as he spoke.
“Either tell the truth in the media about people such a Vic Feazell or keep your mouth shut – that’s the message we wanted heard all over this country,” Richardson said.
Of WFAA he said: “I don’t think they’ll be crossing the county line with a smile on their face.”
The jury took just over six hours Thursday afternoon and Friday morning to deliberate the case against the station and Duncan, who testified during the trial that he’s now a private investigator.
Feazell contended that federal and state law enforcement authorities – embarrassed because he led a grand jury probe that debunked killer Henry Lee Lucas’ claims of 600 murders nationwide – convinced Duncan to take on Feazell and fed the veteran investigative reporter false information.
Videotapes and witness testimony entered throughout the trial supported Feazell’s additional claims that Duncan did a poor reporting job – misrepresenting information and not adequately checking facts – in order to make Feazell look bad.
Feazell further contended that the television reports were intended to spark public outcry for the federal case against him.
The whole ordeal ruined Feazell’s reputation. Richardson likened the damage to a wildfire, quoting Bruce Springsteen’s song, Dancing in the Dark, in his closing arguments. “You can’t start a fire without a spark.”
“Charles Duncan was the match that lit it, and the rest was like a grass fire.”
Feazell, now in private practice here, admitted that even with the Austin acquittal and the verdict in his favor some courthouse pundits....
Back
