Tribune-Herald
FEAZELL WINS $58 MILLION LIBEL SUIT
Award may be record in U.S.
By Tommy Witherspoon
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Claiming a victory in the name of “truth and justice.” Vic Feazell strolled triumphantly out of the McLennan County Courthouse Friday with a record-setting $58 million jury award in his libel suit against a Dallas television station.
Jurors in Waco’s 19th State District Court deliberated about five hours over two days before returning the judgment.
The award is believed to be the largest libel verdict by a jury in the nation’s history. It exceeds the $34 million a jury ordered the Philadelphia Inquirer to pay in May l990 over a 1973 story that criticized a lawyer’s handling of a homicide case when was an assistant district attorney.
Emotional jurors, weary after the six-week trial, embraced the embattled former McLennan County district attorney, his attorney, Gary Richardson, and Feazell’s wife Berni, while filing out of the courtroom.
Feazell was seeking $61.5 million from former WFAA-TV reporter Charles Duncan and the Belo Broadcasting Co., which owns Channel 8 in Dallas. Feazell claimed Duncan’s 10ppart series about him in 1985 was filled with malicious distortions.
The jury of nine women and three men voted unanimously to award Feazell $2 million for damage to his business, $9 million for damage to his reputation, $6 million for humiliation and mental suffering, $40 million in exemplary damages from Belo, and $1 million in exemplary damages from Duncan.
Duncan and his attorneys, John McElhaney and Tom Leatherbury, declined comment after the trial and hastily left the courthouse.
As Duncan was leaving, a reporter called to him for comment, prompting Duncan to cup his hand to his ear and shrug his shoulders – reminiscent of former President Ronald Reagan about to board his helicopter - indicating he could not hear the question over traffic noise from Washington Avenue
Mike McCarthy, senior vice president and general counsel for the A.H. Belo corp., the parent company of WFAA-TV, 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. We will obviously pursue all available post-trail motions, and if necessary, appeals.”
Belo attorneys stood by Duncan’s reports and contended that Feazell’s libel suit amounted to nothing more than his desire to “kill the messenger.” They said the reports were fair comment on a public official.
Duncan, who testified for 10 days, is now a private investigator in Dallas. Belo executives testified that they did not renew his contract in December 1989, because he fell victim to budget cuts.
Feazell, 39, thanked God, his family and Richardson for standing by him throughout the turbulent past six years, in which he contributed to exposing bogus murder confessions by Henry Lee Lucas, took on the Texas Rangers and the FBI and survived a federal bribery trial.
“This jury got to see all of the facts and all of the evidence.” Feazell said. “They got to see more than just the lies that Channel 8 was putting out on the streets. They got to see what the truth was, and I thank God because they took away from me nearly everything I had, except my freedom – and they tried to do that – my wife and family and some of my friends. But they never took away my faith.”
Feazell claimed Duncan worked closely with vengeful law enforcement officers out to retaliate against him for spearheading an April 1985 grand jury session in Waco.
The grand jury cleared Lucas in three McLennan County murders to which he had confessed. That started to unravel Lucas’ murder confession spree, which embarrassed the Texas Rangers task force that had custody of the confessed mass murderer.
He accused Duncan of being the willing “catalyst” investigators were looking for to whip up enough public outcry against Feazell to justify their trumped-up investigation that Feazell took bribes to dismiss cases.
A federal jury in Austin cleared Feazell in 1987. Ironically, that trial also lasted six weeks, after which several jurors said they thought Feazell had been “framed.”
Jurors in the civil trial expressed similar beliefs. At least two said jurors considered that, by returning a huge verdict, they could become the targets of some of the same “powerful people” who they believe set up Feazell.
“Mr. Feazell is a great man and he was wronged by some very big people,” said juror Debby Borrer, whose voiced cracked with emotion as she spoke.
“Maybe they say $58 million is too large, but it has to be big enough – more than just a slap on the wrist – to show we are serious and we are not going to take it,” she said. “There is no place in the world like the United States. There is no other country where they have the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. But along with that freedom, we have to have a responsibility to get the facts right.”
Richardson, who defended Feazell in Austin, said the record-setting verdict should send a message to the media representatives around the county.
“I think the amazing thing that we asked the folks on the jury to come back with no less than $35 million, and they came back with $58 million. That tells how out of control, and I hate to say it to you folks, that some of media is today,” Richardson said in a post-trial press conference on the courthouse steps.
“The jury told us that they really intended and wanted to send a message all over this country that we have had enough. Either tell the truth in the media about such people as Vic Feazell or keep your mouths shut.” Said Richardson, a former U.S. attorney from Tulsa, Okla.
Richardson called the verdict “unquestionably a precedent-setting case.”
“I think there was more slander here than there has ever been in a case in this entire country. And, of course, this is the largest verdict ever for a slander case. I think this case will tell the media more than any case has ever done-enough is enough,” he said.
Feazell said he wanted to thank “…24 very special people. The 12 in Austin who found me not guilty and the 12 here today who found me innocent.”
When asked if he had a message for Duncan, Feazell said no.
“I think the jury gave M. Duncan all the message he needs,” Feazell said.
As Feazell was speaking, the presiding juror rode by in a car, extended two “thumbs up” out the passenger window and yelled, “Hey, Vic.”
Two other jurors said the jury was in agreement on the verdict from the very beginning. After watching each of the nine episodes submitted for their consideration, jurors voted that each contained malice, or a reckless disregard for the truth. After they ate lunch, the jurors set the damage figures.
“We had a problem thinking in these kinds of dollar figures, you know, because there is not one of us here who is ever going to come close to dealing with these kind of numbers,” said one juror who declined to give her name. “So we had to decide what figure would mean something to a station like Channel. We wanted to send a message.”
---The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Back
