Former Maryland Prosecutor receives six-figure sum in libel case against a newspaper

Liz Quinn (eq24)

Marc E. Mandel, Plaintiff v. The Boston Phoenix Inc., ET Al., Defendants
Civil Case
Former Maryland Prosecutor receives six-figure sum in libel case against a newspaper Boston Phoenix published the article titled “Children at Risk,” by Kristen Lombardi, which revealed the failure of family courts to deal with allegations of child abuse. The article included allegations that then Baltimore County, Maryland, prosecutor Marc Mandel
On January 7, 2005 A federal jury in Boston awarded a former Maryland prosecutor, Marc E. Mandel $ 950,000.00 after a newspaper reported allegations of child abuse. The verdict in this case raises the question of whether newspapers will feel threatened by the fear of a suit when it comes to of covering news public importance.
In January 2003, The Boston Phoenix published the article titled “Children at Risk,” by Kristen Lombardi, which revealed the failure of family courts to deal with allegations of child abuse. The article included allegations that then Baltimore County, Maryland, prosecutor Marc Mandel, who at the time was involved in a bitter divorce and custody dispute, had sexually abused his children.
Mandel filed a complaint on June 9th, 2004, against the defendant The Boston Phoenix, Inc. Mandel claimed that the article subtitled “Losing custody to a child molester,” referred to him and called him a child molester. According to the complaint filed, Mandel claims, that “the article further defames him by stating that he had assaulted his daughter from his first marriage and that he is a man who Baltimore, Maryland child-protection workers believe is a child molester.”
Mandel said, “When I saw the article I was devastated. I felt like they destroyed my life. I actually started crying. It was horrible.”
The editor of the Boston Phoenix, Peter Kadzis, was not available for comment.
The Phoenix’s response was that the nature of Mandel’s position as an Assistant State’s Attorney for the state of Maryland rendered him a public official. As a public official, the burden of proof was on Mandel to establish clear and convincing proof that what was published was actually defamatory and printed with “actual malice”. The Phoenix cited New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1974) which states that public officials and public figures cannot recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and that it was made with “actual malice.” The Phoenix cited New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1974) which states that public officials and public figures cannot recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove that the statement was false, and that it was made with “actual malice.”
The court determined that not every public employee is a public official for defamation purposes. According to the context of libel law, only those employees with substantial responsibility for the conduct of government affairs are deemed public officials citing Kassel v. Gannett Co., 875 F.2d 935, 939 (1st Cir. 1989).
According to the motion for summary judgment, “Mandel did not serve as a policy maker, administrator or supervisor. As an Assistant State’s Attorney, he was the lowest-level prosecutor in the Maryland court system. He fell below the middle of the organization chart. He did not routinely supervise, manage, or direct government operations. Mandel’s position simply did not invite public scrutiny and discussion.”
Judge Edward F. Harrington ruled that Mandel was not a public official for purposes of the lawsuit, and therefore did not need to prove actual malice. Harrington declared that the paper knew or had to reason to believe the statements made were false and the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for libel.
A jury found the newspaper liable and awarded Mandel $ 950,000 last month.
The paper has asked Harrington to nullify the award or grant a new trial, claiming that the award was too large, and that the statements made in the paper were not libelous. According to what was cited in New York Times v. Sullivan, Mandel fit the criteria stated and was indeed a public official required to prove “actual malice.”
Phoenix attorney, Daniel J. Gleason, argued in court documents that although Mandel was ruled not a public official before the trial because he held an ordinary non-public job, at trial Mandel relied on the public nature of his job to show he had been damaged by the article.
The firm Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP, specializes in providing legal service to various corporations, and companies. They practice international law, litigation, real estate and finance, healthcare, labor and employment, tax, and trusts and estates and many other areas related to large businesses. They are located in the New England area. According to Rebecca L. Shuffain, legal assistant to Daniel J. Gleason, the firm handles libel cases off and on. The Mandel v. Boston Phoenix Inc. case is currently between trial and appeal. It is in the pre-appeal phase. They have 30 days to appeal to a higher court.
Daniel J. Gleason has experience in cases dealing with First Amendment media litigation, business litigation, environmental insurance disputes, and product liability, in addition to other areas relating to corporate law.
According to Mandel, the defendant, The Boston Phoenix, Inc. filed on Jan. 18th three post -judgment motions and they were all denied by the trial judge. The defense argued nonobstante verdicto or notwithstanding the verdict. Mandel said, “ They argued I was a public official which changed the burden of proof.”
Mandel said at this stage the trial is over. There is no settlement. Once the jury renders a decision there is nothing to settle. The time for settlement is before or during the trial. The defense can request two weeks after the judgment that the case go back to trial court. If it goes to a higher court by law the newspaper cannot ask him to settle or they might end up owing Mandel over 3 million dollars.
Mandel said if the case goes to appeal they will rehash the contention of whether he was actually a public official, while a prosecutor in Maryland. Mandel said, “The allegations had nothing to do with anything. They have some hurdles to get over. It was all about a man getting custody of his children. It had nothing to do with me as a prosecutor. The public official dispute was an afterthought on their part.”
Marc E. Mandel, LLC, is currently a private practice lawyer in Maryland. He handles cases in everything from bankruptcy law to criminal and business matters. He handles family law, juvenile, DUI Defense, alimony, personal injury and many other areas of the law.