Obviously it's impossible to properly evaluate the prospects of a defamation claim based solely on newspaper reports and issues list postings.
But, based on what I've read, I have some doubt that any of the three officers will be able to successfully sue the city for libel or slander. Even assuming that the referral of the matter for an outside investigation is defamatory -- a big, big assumption -- there are a whole host of legal defenses to defamation which will likely protect the city. The one that gets the most press is the First Amendment, but in this instance the city and its officials will also be able to claim a "qualified privilege" defense -- that is, these statements were made in connection with official acts and duties and are thus not actionable. You can overcome a qualified privilege with a showing of actual malice -- but actual malice is nearly impossible to prove, particularly in this context, given the obvious public interest in determining whether or not police officials engaged in criminal misconduct.
I've written a summary of Minnesota defamation law on my professional website: http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html
My interpretation of Gerold's strategy was that she was not trying to set up a future lawsuit, but attempting to escalate the apparent legal stakes in an effort to, shall we say, persuade the city into backing down **before** a final decision was made. In doing so Gerold has undermined the prospects of a future defamation case, in part for reasons that Chris Johnson highlighted. Also Gerold herself called a press conference to complain that her reputation had been damaged, which had the effect of disseminating the "defamatory" information that much wider -- as I recall there was an article in the Strib, on page one of the Metro section, an article which would not have been printed but for Gerold's own statements.
Gerold has a very good lawyer, and if accurate Chief McManus' comments are not helpful. Even still I think the city would have the upper hand in the litigation if Gerold does actually pull the trigger and sue for defamation.
Greg Abbott Linden Hills
On Mar 23, 2004, at 10:21 AM, Chris Johnson wrote:
Then there are those people who believe as the letters to the STrib editor today: that somehow the 3 officers were both slandered and libeled by Chief McManus, and that they should sue the city, and that the city's taxpayers would then have to pay for McManus' mistakes. This begs the question of how one can both slander and libel at the same time, as one is oral and the other in writing.
Here are two big problems with that line of thought:
1. That the officers were publically accused of wrong-doing. As far as I know, they were put on administrative leave with pay while the possibility of such accusations was investigated, but without any such accusations being made. The fact is, someone DID bury a memo about the Officer Ngo shooting, a memo which should have been turned over to the city legal staff for use in Ngo's legal case against it. Responsibility for that memo did reside in the chain of command these 3 officers represent. What else should have been done? If an officer shoots someone in the line of duty, regardless of all evidence that says it was justified, they are put on administrative leave. There's no implication of guilt by that action. Why should it be any different for these 3?
2. Slander or libel implies damage to reputation. One's reputation resides in the eyes of the beholder. Different people are going to take certain news in different ways. In this case, I'm sure there are people who took it as I did: My opinion of these officers did not change one single bit when they were put on administrative leave, as I knew it was proper procedure during an investigation. However, all the complaining and protestation by these officers, especially Gerold, about these administrative leaves have given me a truly negative view. Prior to Gerold's repeated public remarks about how her reputation was ruined and she wanted it back, I was ambivalent about her. Now, I have a negative opinion of her -- not because of McManus' remarks about her, or because she got put on leave, but rather because of her "I'm a wronged victim" complaining in reaction. If the responsbilities of the job are too tough, maybe she should find another line of work. When one is in command of bad investigation, one gets to take the heat. That's how it is. That's because one is supposed to see that the investigation be done properly.
Of course, some of the sniping at the Mayor and the city over McManus is really just thinly-disguised Republican attack on Minneapolis for not being a Republican-enough city. We can discount that junk, although not ignore it since those critics will do their best to continue to beat the city up at the state level.
Chris Johnson Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
