Libel lawsuit against Jackson mayor begins

By Suzanne Monk / managing editor
The Meridian Star

MERIDIAN October 03, 2006 12:41 am

—
The libel trial of Jackson Mayor Frank Melton got off to an odd start Monday in Lauderdale County Circuit Court — odd because the central question has already been decided.
It’s just that the jury doesn’t know it yet.
Judge Robert Bailey has already ruled, after pre-trial hearings, that the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment against the defendant for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The only question the jury will consider is what, if any, damages to award.
Here are some undisputed facts:
n In mid-April 2003, Melton was director of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. He released an internal investigative memo to a reporter from The Clarion-Ledger, which published a story based at least in part on its contents.
n The memo alleged wrong-doing by retired MBN agent Robert Earl Pierce of Union, in Newton County, and current MBN employee Jimmy Saxton. The allegations were unsubstantiated.
n The story was picked up by The Associated Press and subsequently published in several newspapers across the state.
• In late April 2003, Pierce and Saxton filed a lawsuit in Lauderdale County Circuit Court claiming the allegations were false and had caused them emotional distress. The lawsuit was later enlarged to include assertions of libel and invasion of privacy.
• An investigation conducted by the state auditor’s and attorney general’s offices later cleared Pierce and Saxton of any allegations of wrong-doing contained in the memo.

Liability: A ‘done deal’

The original lawsuit asserted that Melton gave a copy of the memo to reporter from The Clarion-Ledger, but he denied it. It was not until June 2005, after Circuit Judge Robert Bailey ordered the reporter to reveal her source, that Melton acknowledged leaking the memo.
The problem with Melton’s lie was that he told it, repeatedly, in court documents filed in answer to the lawsuit.
“I had no idea this was a court document ... I didn’t realize this was testimony ... I really thought it was posturing by the attorneys,” Melton said during a hearing in August 2005.
Bailey’s reaction was decisive.
Calling Melton’s remarks “ludicrous,” Bailey wrote, “The defendant has been a party to litigation in the past ... he is a sophisticated and educated person, who is a very successful businessman ... he knew he was not telling the truth in his answers and that he knew that he should not provide false answers to the court.”
Bailey sanctioned Melton by granting the plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment against Melton on the liability question — meaning that the trial would move directly to a discussion of appropriate damages.
A few months later, the hammer fell on Melton again.
Generally speaking, government employees cannot be sued, personally, in civil lawsuits. This means plaintiffs have to seek damages from the state — not individual employees of the state.
But Bailey stripped Melton of immunity in December, which means any damages awarded by a jury would be paid by the former MBN director.

What’s next?

It’s unclear how long the trial will last.
The plaintiffs have listed, in pre-trial documents, 229 potential exhibits and more than 43 potential witnesses. The defense has listed 31 exhibits and as many as 23 potential witnesses.
In his opening statement, defense attorney Jim Metz made several assertions he is expected to repeat throughout the trial: 1) Melton had no control over what The Clarion-Ledger did with the memo; 2) the memo is not the sole source of information in the original newspaper story; and 3) Melton had no control over what any other newspaper did with the story once it was disseminated over The Associated Press wire.

Editor’s note: It is likely that our next report will come only after the jury’s deliberations.

WHY LAUDERDALE?

Civil lawsuits are filed in one of two places: 1) where the alleged injury or harm occurred; or 2) where the defendants or their employers are located. When this libel lawsuit was first filed in 2003, there was a second defendant who lived in Lauderdale County. Circuit Judge Robert Bailey dismissed the complaints against him late last year. So, even though there is no longer a local defendant, Lauderdale County Circuit Court will see the litigation through to its conclusion — because that’s where it started.