## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE A T NA SHV I LLE A pr i l 15, 2004 S e s s i on S A M S P I C E R , ET AL 

### . v . S T A C E T H O M P S O N , ET AL 

### . A p p eal f rom the C ir cu itC o u rtf o r R u the rf

o rd C o u n ty N o . 4 0 3 5 0 C la raW illis B y rd , J u d ge

No. M 20 02

- 03 11 0- COA- R3- CV - Fi l e d J ul y 7 , 20 04

A pp el l ant Do n P i ckard app eal s the act i on of the trial cou r tf

i nd i ng that he defam ed S er g eant Sam S p icer i n p u b li c statem en ts t o the n ew s m ed ia. Sp icer cros s ap p eals f rom the ac ti o n o f

the tri al co u rt in d ism issin g h is m aliciou s p ros ecu ti o n action agains t D o n Pick ard , Stac e T h o m p so n an d H o w ard M orr i s. W e af

f i r m the act i on of

the tri al cou r tin the defam at i on case an d af f i r m the act i on o f

the tri al cou r ti n the m al i ci ou s prosecuti on case as t o Ho w ar d M orr i s. The m al i ci ou s prosecuti on case ag ai nst D o n P ick ard an d S tace Th o m p so n is af f ir m ed in pa rt an d rev ersed in pa rt . Th e cas e is r em an d ed to t he tri al cou r tf

or f urther pr oceed i ngs. T en n . R . A p p . P. 3 A p p ea l as o f R igh t; J u d g m en t o f the C ircu it

A ffi rm ed in Part and R eversed in Pa rt 

### W I L L I AM 

### B. C A IN 

### , J ., delivered the opinion of the court, in which PATR I C I A 

### J. C O T T RE LL 

### , and FR ANK 

### G. C L EME NT 

### , J R 

### ., J J ., joined. J ames Douglas Kay , Matthew B rothers, Tom PriceThompson, III , Nas hvi l l e , Te nne s s e e , f orthe ap p ellees, cros s-ap p ellan ts, Sa m Sp icer an d w if e, K aren Sp icer. Gr e g or y Ha l l Oa kl e y , Na s hvi l l e , Te nne s s e e , f orthe appe l l a nt , D o n P i c k a r d a nd, c r os s - a ppe l l e e s , Don P ic k a rd , S ta c e T h o m p s o n an d H o w a rd M o rris
. OP I N I ON I
. F acts A
. T h e p ri n cip als T h is ca s e in v o lv e s p e rs o n n e l o f th e Lav e rgn e P o lic e D e p a rtm e n t. Sa m Sp i cerwa s af

ul l t i me p ol i c e o f

f i c e re mp l oy e d byt he Ci t y of L a ve r g ne s i nc e 1 98 5. At th e tim e o f

h is term in a tio n in J u n e o f 1 9 9 8 , h e h a d atta in e d th e ran k o f se rgea n t. Karen Sp i cer , w ife of Sa m Spi c e r , j oi ne d i n h i s s ui ta g a i ns tDon P i c ka r d et al.

### -2-

Don P i c k ard b eca m e C it y A d m inistrato r o f L av erg n e in A u gus t of 1 9 9 7 an d r em ain ed in th is pos i t i on t hr oug houtthe t i me pe r i od r e l e va ntt o thi s c a s e . He a ppoi nt e d D w ayn e H i cks , a f orm er Lav e rgn e p o lic e o f

f ic e r, a s A s s is ta n t C ity A d m in is tra to r. Stac e Th omps on , a po l i ce of f i ceremp l oy ed by the L averg ne P oli ce Dep ar t m ent si nce 1 98 9, w as order ed b y D on Pickar d to i nv est i g at e Sam S p icer. M i ke Patri ck , Po l i c e Chi e f of L a ve r g n e p ri ort o mi d- June of 19 98, de pa r t e d f

r om tha tpo s i t i on in th e co u rs e o f

P ic k a rd a n d T h o m p s o n ’s in v e s tigati o n . Ho w a rd“B u tch ” M o rris w as Poli ce C hief o f th e C ityo f

Lav e rgn e f

ro m m id -J u n e o f

1 9 9 8 th ro u gh all o th e r tim e s rele v a n t in th is ca s e . A t t o r n e y Ed Hi l and , r ep resen ted Sa m Sp icer du ri n g the p o st-M ay 8 , 1 9 9 8 inv estig ation u n ti l h e w ith d re w f

ro m su c h rep re s e n ta tio n w h e n it b e c a m e o b v io u s h e w o u ld b e a w itn e s s . M al c ol m “Sk i

p” El r od , p ol y g r a ph e xa mi ne rwa s e mp l oy e d b y Don P i c kar d t o a dm i ni s t e rt wo pol y g r a ph t e s t s t o S a m Spi c e r . In t he i nt e r i m be t wee n t he e xa ms, Sp i c e r , thr oug h At t or ne y Hi l a nd, re ta in e d th e s e rv ic e s o f C h a rles S co tt , a pri vate po l y g r aph exam i ner t o adm i nist er a po l y g r aph t est to S p ic e r. A lso ap p earin g are: 1. Ni c kWats on , ana r c ot i c s of f i c e rof the L a ve r g ne Pol i c e D e pa rt men ti n ch a r g e of the M ay 8 , 1 9 9 8 u n d erco v er dru g o p eration ; 2. J
. R. Smi th, a/

k / a S am Dix on , an a cqu ai ntance of D on Pickard f r om EastTen nessee, brou g ht i nto L averg ne by Pickard as an und er cov erdrug op er at i ve to pu r chase i l l eg al drug s and l ay the b asis f

o r the cri m ina l cha rg es in v o lve d in th e M ay 8 , 1 9 9 8 d rug sting; 3. B o b b y D a ing erfield , patri ar ch o f the D ai nger f

i el d fam i l y , f

orm erL ave rg ne p oli ce o f f icer an d o p erato r o f

the “P it -Sto p ” restau ran t; 4. S ea n a n dBilly D a ing erfield , teen aged so n s o f B o b b y D ain ger f

ield; 5. Tw an a C arr , sister o f B o b b y D ain ger f

ield; 6. G eorg e Peach , b o y f ri en d o f Tw an a C arr; 7. R o b ert Wo lf

e , C ap tain o n the Lav erg n e P o li ce D ep artm en t an d , a s w as th e cas e w ith the o the r p o li ce o f

f icers, an em p loy ee at w il l. H e w as f ir ed b y D o n Pick ard in J u n e o f 1 9 9 8 ; 8. Car olBu rge s on , c onf i dent i a l i nf

or man tr e l a t i ve t o the drug tr a de in Lav erg n e in J an u ary o f

1 9 9 8 ; 9. Ja so n G o

for th , y oung ma n i n L a ve r g ne f ound fi r i ng as t ol e n g un on Se pt e mbe r4, 1 9 9 7 ;

### -3-

10. Wi l l i am Ti mso n , L a ve r g ne po l i c e of f i c e rf i r s ton the s c e ne a tthe Gof orth i nc i de ntof S ep tem b er 4, 19 9 7 ; 11. Chr i s t ophe rSp radl i ng , na r c ot i c s de t e c t i ve a t L a ve r g ne Pol i c e Dep a r t men t t o whom J aso n G o f

o rth w as d elive red b y W il li am Tim so n an d Sa m Sp icer on Se p tem b er 4, 19 9 7 ; 12. Jim m y B a ll , i nve s t i g a t orf orthe Na t i ona l Ins ur a nc e Cr i me Bur e a u i nvolv e d i n the inv estig ation o f

a sto len m o torcy cle inc ide n t; 13. Wil li a m W

h it ese ll , D istr ict A tt o rne y G en eral i n R u the rf o rd C o u n ty ; B
. P o li ce sc an d al an d the b eginn ing o f the S p icer i n q u iry I n mi d- 1997 , the Boa r d o f Al de r man of

L a ve r g ne , Ten nessee , be i ng di s s a t i s f i e d wi th the o v erall p erfo rm a n c e o f the Lav erg n e P o li ce D ep artm en t, em p loy ed D o n Pick ard as C it y A dmi ni s tr a t or wi t h i ns truc t i ons t o s tr a i g ht e n out the pol i c e de pa r t men t . W he n i nc umbe ntPo l i ce Chi e f M i ke Pa tr i c k d e c l i ne d t o make per s onne l cha ng e s , M r . Pi c ka r d r e l i e ve d hi m a nd t ook ove rthe o p e ra ti o n o f th e p o li c e d e p a rt m e n t h im s e lf. I n e f f o r t s t o c o mb a t t h e d ru g tr a f f i c i n L a v e r g n e M r . P i c k a r d e mp l o y e d J
. R. Smi t h, a pr i or worki ng a c qu a i nt a nc e f r om E a s tT e nn e s s e e , a s a n un de r c ov e ra g e nt . S mi th t oo k the a s s um e d na me of Sa m Di xon a nd be g a n t o work h i s wa y i nt o the l oc a l drug c ommuni t y . P i c ka r d se t u p the unde r c ove rop e r a t i on i n the l a t t e r pa r tof 19 97 wi th De t e c t i ve Ni c k W a t s on i n c ha r g e a nd r e port i ng di r e c t l y t o P i c ka r d. S mi t h we ntunde r c ove rac t i ng as a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or man tand ma ki ng va r i ous d rug p u rch ase s f

rom loca l d e a le rs alw ay s u sin g the co d e n am e S am D ixo n . A m o n g the p ri m ary t a r g e t s of t he dr ug i nve s t i g a t i on wer e m e mbe r s of the Da i ng e r f

i e l d f a mi l y l e d b y BobbyDa i ng e r f i e l d, a f o rm e r Lav e rgn e p o lic e o f f ic e r w h o o p e ra te d a re s ta u ra n t in Lav e rgn e k n o w n as th e “P it S to p .” Sa m Di xon worke d h i mse l f i nt o the c onf

i de nc e of

the Dai ng e r f

i e l d f a mi l y , a nd whi l e he di d n ot t est i f y atthe tri al , i tw ou l d ap p e a r th a t h e no t i f i ed N i ck W at son and D on Pickar d thatSam Sp i cer “ tip p e d o f

f ” so m e in d iv id u a ls w h o w e re targe ts o f th e d ru g in v e s tigati o n . Th e un dercov erdrug op er at i on culminated i n a w i de scal e drug bu sto n the m orning of M ay 8, 19 98
. In the C i t y of L averg ne c ou r tr oo m , w arr ants w er e being i ssued begi nn i ng at4:00 a. m . that m orning and co nti nu i ng thr ou g ho ut the d ay . Serg eant Sp i cerw as no ta partof the d rug st i ng and w as assi g ned t o o t her duti es. Spicerapp ear ed at the ci t y co urtr oo m so m e ti m e arou nd 6 to 6:15 a. m . as the sti n g o p eration w as b eginn ing. H e the reaf ter lef t the co u rtroo m an d w en t o n p atrol. H e w en t t o t he Pi tSt op M a rke tf

orbr e a kfa s t . Both S pi c e ra nd othe rof f i c e r s of the L a ve r g ne Po l i c e De pa r t men t wer e r e g ul a rc us t ome r s of the Pi t
- St op M a rke tw he r e t he y app a r e nt l y r e c e i ve d f r e e m e a l s f

r om the D ai nger f i el d fam i l y . Pi ckard, dri ving ar ou nd bef ore the sti ng op er at i on com m enced , ob served Sp i cer ’ s caran d an other patr ol caratthe P i t
- Stop and , no tw i shing t o h ave p oli ce vehicl es ata place w h ere arrests w ere to b e m ad e, w an ted th e cars m o v ed
. S p icer l ef t th e P it -Sto p af

ter b reak fast o f

h is o w n a c c o rd a n d r etu rne d to h is p atrol d u ti es. N ick W atso n then w en t bac k to C it y H all to in f o rm D on Pickar d thatSp i cerhad been i n the c ou r tr oo m l oo king atw arr ants pr i or t o h aving breakfastat t he P i t
- Stop and w as “ti p ping of f ” peo ple atthe re st aurant. W hen Sp i cerr eturned t o p oli ce

### -4-

head qu ar t er s he w as conf r on t ed b y D o n P i ckard abo ut the “ti pp i ng of f ” al l eg at i on s. Spicer vig orou sl y d enied t hat h e h ad t i pp ed of f an y bo dy ab ou tany thing. Pi ckard i m m ediat el y place d S picer on a dmi ni s tr a t i ve l e a ve a s of the mor ni ng of

M a y 8, 19 98. Immedi a t e l y a f t e r the M a y 8, 1998 s t i ng op er at i on Pickar d o r dered L averg ne P oli ce Of f i c e rSt a c e Th omps on t o inv est i g at e the all eg at i on s that S p ic e r h a d tip p e d o f

f in d iv id u a ls at th e P it-S to p M a rk e t. H e w a s o rd e re d to rep o rt h is f in d in gs d ire c tly to P ic k a rd
. The a l l e g a ti on s abo ut “ti pp i ng of f ” drug deale r s came p r i m ar i l y f r om al l eg ed sta t e men t s ma de by m em bers of

the D ai nger f

i el d fam i l y . Du r i ng al l of this time u nd er cov erag ent Sam D i xo n w as v e r y c l o s e t o t h e D a i n ge r fi e l d fa m i l y a n d w a s p u r c h a s i n g d ru gs fr o m v a r i o u s m e m b e r s o f th e fa m i l y. Al l of t he membe r s of

the Da i ng e r f

i e l d f a mi l y we r e arr e s t e d i n the M a y 8, 19 98 drug s t i ng . Af t e rthe drug st i ng t hey al l m ai ntai ned that they w er e no tt al king abo ut Sam Sp i cer b u ti n factabo ut Sam Di xon. T wan a Ca rrt e s t i f i e d tha ts he ma de i tc l e a rt o S t a c e Th omps on tha ts he wa s t a l ki ng a bo ut Sa m Di xon a nd notSa m Spi c e r . Bobb y Da i ng e r f i e l d t e s t i f

i e d: Q. W he r e we r e y ou whe n [ St a c e Th omps on] qu e s t i one d y ou? A
. O n ce at the LaV erg n e C it y P o li ce D ep artm en t, o n ce at th e R u the rf o rd Count y Sh e r i f

f ’ s De pa r t m ent, a nd onc e a tM or g a n Coun t y Re g i ona l Fa c i l i t y , the pe ni t e nt i a r y , the a nne x f orBrus hyM ount a i n. Q. Te l l us a boutthos e c onve r s a t i ons wi th M r . Th omps on. A
. W ell, S tace w as as k ing m e q u estio n s ab o u t Sam an d if h e’d ev er t o ld m e - - i f he had e ver l etm e g o w hen Ihad been arr est ed o rsho uld h ave b een arr est ed and i f Ikn ew of

any f avo r s he had everdo ne f or any bo dy or things of that nature. Q. And whe n we’ r e t a l ki ng a bout Sa m, a r e we r e f e rr i ng t o S a m Spi c e ror Sa m Di xon? A
. A t th at po int Ik n ew h e w as talk ing a b o u t S am Sp icer. A n d Id o n ’t reco ll ect the co n v ersatio n . I m ean , it ch an ged at so m e p o int. A t so m e p o int h ere in t i me Iw a s t a l ki ng abo utSa m Di xon, t oo, be c a us e Iwa s s t i l l tr y i ng t o b e he a r d about t hi s o t he rS a m. Q. How di d the c onve r s a t i on c ha ng e t o S a m Di xon? A
. W el l , Ist i l l w ou l d l i ke t o kn ow w hat they intend to do ab ou tthis man w h o h a s b e e n b u y in g m y k i d s b e e r an d ciga re tte s . H e w a s a p o lic e o f f ic e r, to o . I kn ew they w er e tr y i ng t o co ncen tr at e on Sam S picer
. Ididn ’ tkn ow abo ut Sam Sp i cer do i ng a ny t hi ng , b utId i d kn ow a bo utthi s o the rS a m. A nd that w a s whe n Ii nf or med hi m the r e wa s a nothe rof f i c e ri nvol ve d. T h ey ’d as k ed m e ab o u t H arryH o ll ins w h ich w as a p o li ce o f f icer th ere in to w n , they ’d asked m e abo ut things abo ut h i m . A nd to t he b estof m y m em ory , Ido n’tr em em ber e ve rt e l l i ng the m a ny t hi ng a bout Sa m Spi c e r tha twa s i n a nywa y wi th the i nt e nt , y ou know, ma ki ng hi m be l i e ve tha the wa s g i vi ng me i nf or mati on. T h e o the r m em b ers o f

the D ain ger f

ield fam il y , Tw an a C arr, Se an D ain ge rfie ld an d B il ly D a in ge rfie ld , m ad e itclear i n their t estim o n y at tri al th at Sa m Sp icer ne v er t ipp ed them o f f to a ny t hi ng , a nd t ha ta nypr e - tr i a l s t a t e men t s t o the c ontr a r y a c tua l l y i nvol ve d S a m Di xon.

### -5-

W he n i tc a me t o the a t t e nt i on of Th omps on a nd W at s on, a f t e rM a y 8, 19 98, tha tBobby D ai nger f i el d, t hen i ncarc e r a t e d atBrus hyM ount a i n Corr ect i on al Faci l i t y , had exo nerat ed S am Sp i cer relati v e to th e “tipp ing o f f ” ch arg es, th e y w en t t o the p ri so n to co n f ron t him
. B o b b y D ain ger f ield testif ied that at this i n terview h e told T h o m p so n an d W atso n “an d to th e b est o f m y m em o ry , Id o n ’t r e membe re ve rt e l l i ng the m a ny t hi ng a boutSa m Spi c e rtha twa s i n a nywa y wi th the i nt e nt , y ou know, mak i ng hi m be l i e ve t ha t he was g i vi ng me i nf or mati on. ” The t a pe r e c or di ng of the Br us hy M ou ntai n C orr ect i on al Faci l i t y i nter view , w hich w as mad e by Th om pso n and W at son , disappeared before atr anscri pt could b e mad e. C
. E x p an sio n o f

the S p icer i n q u iry S u b seq u en t t o M ay 8 , the T h o m p so n in v estig ation s ex p an d ed into areas th at ha d n o thin g to do wi t h t h e Ma y 8 , 1 9 9 8 s t i n g o p e r a t i o n b u tw a s r a th e rar e o p e n i n g o f m a t t e r s p r e d a t i n g th e dr ug s t i ng . T he s e c ol l a t e r a l ma t t er s ha ve l i t t l e t o d o wi th the de fa mati on c a s e bu tmuc h t o d o wi th the m alici ou s prosecuti on case . The f i r stof these exp and ed T ho m pso n inv est i g at i on s w as concerned wi t h the a l l e g e d the f

tof amot or c y c l e t wel ve y e a r s e a r l i e r . In l a t e 19 97, Ji mmy Ba l l , a n i nve s t i g a t or f orthe Na t i ona l Ins ur a nc e Cr i me Bur e a u, s oug hta s s i s t a nc e f r om the L a ve r g ne Po l i c e De pa r t men t i n the i nv est i g at i on of

this al l eg edlyst olen m otorcy cl e. Sam D i xo n h ad inf orm ed T w ana C arrthat this m o torcy cle, the n in th e p o sse ssio n o f h er bo y f ri en d G eo rg e P eac h , w as a sto len v eh icle. B o th Tho mps on a nd Spi c e r i nve s t i g a t e d t he c a s e thoug h ne i the r of the m s oug htas e a r c h wa rr a ntf orthe ve hi cl e. I n c onve r s a t i on wi t h Ji mmy Ba l l Sa m Spi c e ra s ke d Ba l l wha twoul d h a ppe n i f the mot or c y c l e s i mpl y wa s f ound on t he s i de of the r oa d. M r . Bal l was no ti mpr e s s e d wi th thi s s t a t e men t b y S p ic e r. T h e in v e s tigati o n at th a t p o in t ca m e to an en d w ith T h o m p s o n tes tif y in g: T H E C O U R T : So w h y d idn ’ty a’ll g et a search w arran t? THE W I TNESS : I f

Ir e membe rr i g ht , YourHonor , the c a s e wa s a bout t e n y e a r s ol d. The se c ond of

the s e c ol l a t e r a l i nve s t i g a t i ons i nvol ve d wha twe wi l l r e f e rt o a s the Ja s on G oforth inci d e n t. O n S eptem ber 4, 19 97 , O f f i cerW i l l i am Timso n o f the L averg ne P oli ce Dep a r t men twa s di s pa t c he d t o a n a r e a whe r e s hooti ng of f i r e a r ms was oc c urr i ng a nd was me ta tthe scene by Ser g eant Sam Sp i cer . O ne of the person s f

i r i ng the w eapo ns w as Jaso n G oforth, w ho w as f i r i ng awe a pon t ha twa s de t e r mi ne d t o h a ve be e n s t ol e n. Of f i c e rTi mso n wa s r i di ng abi c y c l e a nd Se r g e a ntSp i c e rha d a rr i ve d i n h i s patr ol ca r . Af t e ri nt e r vi e wi ng G of

orth a nd de t e r mi ni ng tha tthe wea pon ha d be e n r e port e d s t ol e n, Se r g e a nt Spi c e r di r e c t e d Gof orth t o d r i ve hi s ve hi c l e ba c k t o the pol i c e s t a t i on wi t h S e r g e a ntSp i c e rf ol l owi ng . Of

f i c e rTi mso n r ode hi s bi c y c l e ba c k t o hi s own pa tr ol carand r eturned t o the p o lic e st at i on . Spicerthen turned Jaso n G oforth o ver t o n ar coti cs of f i cer C h ri sto p h er Sp rad li n g w h o interv iew ed G o f o rth at l en gth
. Th e interv iew co n clu d ed w ith G o f o rth ag r eei ng t o w eara w i r e r eco rd in g att achm ent and try t o inte r view the p er son f r om w ho m he had p u rch ase d the s tolen g u n . G o f o rth w as n o t place d u n d er arr est. D. Spi c e r ’ s po l y g r a phs

### -6-

F o ll o w ing h is s u sp en sio n o n M ay 8 , 1 9 9 8 , Se rg ean t Sp icer r etain ed Ed H il an d o f N ash v il le a s hi s a t t or ne y . Upon Sp i c e r ’ s i ns i s t e nc e , apo l y g r a ph t e s twa s arr anged forM a y 22 , 19 98. T he pol y g r a ph e xa mi ne r , M a l c ol m “ Ski p” El r od, wa s em ploy e d b y Don P i c ka r d a nd pe r f or med the e xa mi na t i on. T he r e s ul t s of thi s e xa mi na t i on w er e i nc onc l us i ve , a nd El r od i nf or med Hi l a nd a nd S p icer of the in co n clu siv e resu lt s. E lr o d later a d v ised P ick ard a n d T h o m p so n th at w h il e h e co u ld pr ove not hi ng he be l i e ve d tha tSp i c e rha d ma ni pul a t e d the t e s ti n awa y tha tpr oduc e d the inc o n clu siv e resu lt s. A n o the r p o ly gr ap h tes t b y E lr o d w as arran ged fo r J u n e 1 1 , 1 9 9 8
. I n th e interim M r . H i l and arr anged f

or N ashv i l l e p oly g r aph ex am i ner C harl es S cottto adm i nist era p oly g r aph t est t o M r . Sp i c e ron Jun e 8, 19 98. T hi s t e s tr e s ul t e d i n af i ndi ng tha tSp i c e rha d a ns wer e d a l l qu e s t i ons truthf ul l y . W he n S pi c e ra nd Hi l a nd a rr i ve d f orthe June 11, 1998 p ol y g r a ph t e s t , St a c e Th omps on at t em pted t o co nv er tthe po l y g r aph testinto a ge neral i nterr ogat i on i nv olving som e f i f t y qu est i on s. Hi l a nd obj e c t e d t o thi s pr oc e dur e , a nd a f t e rthe f i r s tpr opos e d q ue s t i on was a s ke d, he r e c e s s e d the c on f e r e nc e i n or de rt o s pe a k wi t h h i s c l i e ntpr i va t e l y be f or e t he qu e s t i on wa s a ns we r e d. Atthi s t i me t he e nt i r e pr oc e e di ng wa s r e c e s s e d. Duri ng thi s r e c e s s Th omps on c onf e rr e d wi th P i c ka r d a nd El r od, an d w h en Sp icer an d H il an d reap p eared T h o m p so n term ina ted the interro gati o n say ing tha t he w o u ld si m ply t ake the matt er s t o the g r and j ury . Sp i cer w as nev eratt ached t o the po l y g r aph m achine, nev er pu tun der oath, and nev er qu est i on ed b y the p oly g r aph exam i ner. Si x d ay s af t erthe J un e 11 abo r t ed pol y g r a ph t e s t Don Pi c ka r d mad e t he s t a t e men t s t o the pr e s s whi c h f or m the ba s i s of

thi s de fa mati on a c tio n . The r e a f

t e rSt a c e Th omps on, a tthe i ns truc t i on of Don P i c ka r d, pr os e c ut e d S a m Spi c e rf orthe Ji mmy Ba l l

- mot or c y c l e i nciden ta nd t he Ja s on Gof orth i nc i de ntwhi c h p r os e c ut i on r e s ul t e d i n the f ourc ounti ndi c t men tof Nove mbe r4, 19 98. I I
. D efam ation o f

a Pu b li c F ig u re A. T he l a w - de fa mati on Cert a i n n e a run i ve r s a l rul e s of l a w f or m a ba c kdr op f

orou rc ons i de r a t i on. T he l a w of d e fa m a tio n c o n s is ts o f th e tw in to rts o f lib e l a n d sla n d e r. Lara v . Th omas , 51 2 N. W
. 2d 7 77 ( I owa 1 9 9 4 ); Bat tv. G l obe Engi ne e r i ng Co. , 7 7 4 P
. 2 d 3 7 1 (K an . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 9 ). “It is rep u tati o n w h ich is d e fa m e d , rep u ta tio n w h ic h is in ju re d , an d rep u ta tio n w h ic h is p ro te c te d b y th e law o f d e fa m a tio n .” 50 Am. Jur
. 2nd Libel an d S l an der§ 2 ( 1 9 9 5 ); see al so Go b i n v . G l o b e P u b l ’ g Co. , 6 49 P. 2d 1239 (K an . 1 9 8 2 ). As r e g a r ds apri va t e pe r s on, “T o es t a bl i s h a pr i ma fa c i e ca s e of def a mati on i n T e nne s s e e , the pl a i nt i f f mus te s t a bl i s h tha t : 1 ) apa r t y pu bl i s he d a s t a t e men t ; 2) w i th k nowl e dg e tha tthe s t a t e men t is f alse an d d efam ing to the o the r; o r 3 ) w ith rec k less d isreg ard fo r th e tru th o f th e statem en t or w ith n e gligen c e in f

a ilin g to as c e rta in th e tru th o f th e sta te m e n t. See Re s t a t e men t( Se c ond) of To r t s § 580 B ( 1 9 7 7 ); Pr e s s , I

nc . v . Ve r ran , 56 9 S
. W
. 2d 43 5, 44 2 (T e n n .1 9 78 )
. ” S u ll iva n v. Bap ti st M em ’l Hos p. , 9 9 5 S.W
. 2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 1 ( T en n . 1 9 9 9 ).

### -7-

Def a mati on l aw in t he mode r n a g e s e e ks t o s tr i ke aba l a nc e be t wee n t wo c ompe t i ng pri nciples, tho se bei ng t he ri g ht o f the i nd i vidu al to protecth i s good n am e an d the f r eedo m of

speech g uarantee d b y the F i r stA m end m ent t o the C on st i tuti on of the U nit ed S t at es. I thas been ob ser ved by the S up r em e C ou r tof the U nit ed S t at es: Since the latt erhalf

of the 1 6th century , the co m m on l aw has af f orded a cause of a c t i on f

orda mag e t o ape r s on’ s r e put a t i on bythe pu bli cat i on of f a l s e a nd d e fa m a to ry sta te m e n ts . Se e L. Eldr e dge , L aw o f D efam ation 5 ( 1 9 7 8 ). I n S ha ke s pe a r e ’ s Ot he l l o, I a g o s a y s t o Othe l l o: “ Good n a me i n ma n a nd woman , de a rmy l or d, I s the imm ediat e j ew el of theirsou l s. W ho s t e a l s my pu r s e s t e a l s tr a s h; ‘T is so m e th in g, n o th in g; ‘ Tw as mine, ‘ t i s his, and has been sl ave to tho usan ds; Buth e tha tf

i l c he s f r om me myg oo d na me Rob s me o f

tha twh i c h no te nri c he s h i m, And ma ke s me po ori nde e d. ” Ac tII I , s c e ne 3. D efam ation law d ev elo p ed n o t o n ly as a m ean s o f allow ing an ind ivid u al t o v ind icate his g oo d n am e, bu tal so f or t he purpo se of ob t ai ning r edress f or har m caused b y such s ta te m e n ts . Eldredge, sup ra , a t 5
. A s th e c o m m o n l a w d e v e l o p e d i n th i s c o u n tr y, apartf r om the iss ue o f

dam ag es, on e usu ally n e e d ed o nly al l eg e an un pri vil eg ed publ i c a t i on of

f a l s e a nd de fa mat or y ma t t e rt o s t a t e ac a us e of a c t i on f orde fa mati on. Se e , e . g. , R estatem en t o f T o rt s § 5 5 8 ( 1 9 3 8 ); G ertz v. Ro bert Welch, I nc. , 4 1 8 U .S ., at 37 0 , 4 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 7 8 9 , 9 4 S .C t. 2 9 9 7 ( W h it e, J
. , d issen ti n g) ( “U n d er ty p ical state defam at i on l aw , the d efam ed pri vate ci t i zen had to prov e on l y a fal se pu bli cat i on that w o u ld s u bject h im to h atred , c o n tem p t, o r ridicu le”). Th e co m m o n law g en erallyd id no tplace any add i t i on al r estr i ct i on s on the t y pe o f st at em ent that could b e acti on able. I nd eed, defam at ory co m m un i cat i on s w er e d eem ed act i on able r eg ar dless of w hether th e y w e re d e e m e d to b e sta te m e n ts o f f a c t o r o p in io n . Se e , e . g. , Re s t a t e men t (S e c o n d ) o f

T o rts , sup ra , § § 5 6 5 -5 6 7
. M i l k ov i c h v
. Lo rai n JournalCo. , 4 9 7 U
. S
. 1 1 1 -13 , 1 1 0 S.C t. 2 6 9 5 , 1 1 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 ( 1 9 9 0 ). To t e mpe rthi s ha r s h rule o f the c ommon l a w wi th i t s ob vi ous i nhi bi t i on t o f r e e dom of e xpr e s s i on, apa r a l l e l rul e de ve l ope d.

I n 19 64, we de c i de d i n New YorkTi mes Co. v . Su l l i v an , 37 6 U. S. 25 4, 11 L
. Ed
. 2d 6 86 , 8 4 S.Ct. 7 10 , 95 A L R 2d 14 12 , that the F i r stA m end m ent t o the U nit ed St a t e s Cons t i t ut i on pl a c e d l i mi t s on the appl i c a t i on of the s t a t e l a w of

de fa mati on. Th er e the C ou r tr ecogni zed the need f or “af ederal rule that p r oh i bit s a pu bli c of f i ci al f r om r ecov er i ng dam ag es for a defam at ory fal seho od r el at i ng t o h i s of f i ci al con du ct unl e s s he pr ove s tha tthe s t a t e men twa s mad e wi th ‘ a c tua l mal i c e ’

- - tha ti s , wi th the k n o w le d ge th a t it w a s f

a ls e o r w ith rec k le s s d is re gard o f w h e th e r it w a s fals e o r n o t.” 37 6 U
. S., at27 9-28 0, 11 L
. Ed
. 2d 68 6, 84 S.Ct. 71 0, 95 A L R 2d 14 12
. This rule wasT h e ru le w a s e x te n d e d to “p u b lic figu re s” b y C u rtis P u b lish in g C o . v. B u tts , 388 U
. S. 130, 87 S. Ct
. 1975, 1 1 8 L .E d .2 d 1 0 9 4 (1 9 6 7 ); G er tz v. R ob er tWel ch, Inc. , 4 1 8 U .S . 3 2 3 , 9 4 S .C t. 2 9 9 7 , 4 1 L .E d .2 d 7 8 9 (1 9 7 4 ). 

### -8- p rom p ted b y a co n cern that, w ith r esp ect to th e crit icism o f p u b li c o f

f icials i n their con du ctof

g ov er nm ental af

fai r s, a st at e- l aw “ ‘ rule co m pell i ng the cr i t i c of of f i ci al con du ct to g ua r a nt e e the truth o f a l l hi s f a c tua l a s s e r t i ons ’ woul d d e t e rpr ot e c t ed s p e e c h .” G ertz v. Ro bert Welch, I nc. , 418 U
. S. , a t334, 41 L
. Ed. 2d 789 , 94 S. C t. 2 9 9 7 (q u o tin g New York Tim es, sup ra , a t27 9, 11 L
. Ed. 2d 68 6, 84 S. Ct
. 71 0, 95 A LR 2 d 1 4 1 2 ). M i l k ov i c h v
. Lo rai n JournalCo. , 4 9 7 U
. S
. 1 , 1 1 0 S.C t. 2 6 9 5 , 1 1 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 , 1 4 -15 ( 1 9 9 0 ). Reg a r di ng apu bl i c of f i c i a l orpu bl i c f

i g ure, Te nne s s e e f

ol l ows s e c t i on 580( a ) of the R e s ta te m e n t o f

T o rts p ro v id in g: § 5 8 0 A
. D ef

am ati on of Pu bli c O

f f i ci al or Pu bli c Fi gu re . On e w ho pu bli shes a f al se an d d efam ato ryco m m u n ication co n cern ing a p u b li c o f f icial o r p u b li c f

ig u re i n r egard t o h i s c ondu c t , f

i t ne s s or r ol e i n tha t c a pa c i t y i s s ubj e c t t o l i a bi l i t y , i f, buton l y i f, he ( a ) kn ows t ha tt he st a t e men ti s fa l s e and t ha ti tde fa mes the othe rpe r s on, or ( b) ac t s i n rec kless disr eg ar d o f these m at t er s. Pr e s s , I nc . v . Ve r ran , 56 9 S
. W
. 2d 435, 44 2. T h e “ a c tu a l m a li c e ” re q u ir e m e n ts o f th e la n d m a rk c a s e o f New YorkTi mes Co. v . Su l l i v an , 376 U. S. 25 4, 84 S. Ct
. 71 0, 11 L
. Ed. 2d 686 ( 1964 ) a nd i t s pr og e nya r e c ontr ol l i ng i n thi s c a s e . T he Te nne s s e e r ul e s w e r e cl e a r l y se tf ort h b y Chi e f

Jus t i c e He nr y i n Pr e s s , I nc . v . Ve r ran , 56 9 S
. W
. 2d 43 5 (Tenn
. 19 78 )
. The h eartof the New York Tim es rule sa y s, “the co nsti tuti on al g uarantee s r equ i r e, w e thin k , a f

ed eral ru le th at pro h ibits a p u b li c o f f icial fro m r e co v ering d am ages f o r a d efam ato ry fal seho od r el at i ng t o h i s of f i ci al con du ctun l ess he prov ed that the s t at em ent w as m ade w i th ‘ac tual m al i ce’ - - that i s, w i t h k no w l edge t hat itw as fal se o rw i th r eckless disr eg ar d o f w hether i tw as f

al se or not . ” N ew YorkTi mes Co. v . Su l l i v an , 37 6 U. S. 25 4 a t27 9- 80, 84 S. Ct
. 71 0, 11 L
. Ed. 2d 686 (19 6 4 ). 1 I n the w o rds o f

the S u p rem e C o u rto f

Te n n ess ee: The r e ma y be no l i a bi l i t y wi thoutfault , b utthe mor e hi g hl y pl a c e d the i ndividu al , the g r e a t e ri s the r e qui r e d d e g r e e of f a ul t . T he e s c a l a t i ng r a ng e i s f r om t he i nd i v i d u a l e n g a g e d i n p r i v a t e p u r s u i t s , wh o s e c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s t o b e t e s t e d b y con ven t i o nal neg l i g ence st and ar ds, up t o p ub l i c of f i ci al s eng ag ed in pu bli c du t i es, whe r e t he ‘ knowl e dg e - or - r e c kl e s s di s r e g a r d’ rul e i ndi c a t i ve of a c tua l ma l i c e i s the c ons t i t ut i ona l c r i t e r i on. Pr e s s , I nc . v . Ve r ran , 5 6 9 S.W
. 2 d 4 3 5 , 4 4 0 -41 ( T en n . 1 9 7 8 ).

### -9-

I n d eterm inin g the tru th o r falsityo f a statem en t i n the law o f d efam ation the S u p rem e C o u rt of the Uni t e d S t a t e s ha s he l d:

T h e c o m m o n la w o f

l i b e l t a k e s b u to n e a p p r o a c h to th e q u e s t i o n o f fa l s i t y, r eg ar dless of

the f orm of t he c om m un i cat i on . See Restat em ent ( Seco nd ) of To r t s § 563, Commen tc ( 1977 ) ; W
. Kee t on, D. Dobbs , R. Kee t on, & D. Owen , Pr os s e ra nd Kee t on on L a w of

To r t s 77 6 (5th ed 1 984)
. Itov e r l ooks mi nori na c c ur a c i e s a nd co n cen tr ates u p o n s u b stan ti al tru th. A s in o the r jurisd icti o n s, C alif o rnia law p erm it s t he de f e nse o f s ubs t a nt i a l truth a nd woul d abs ol ve ade f e nda nte ve n i f

s he c a nnot “j usti f y ever y w ord of

the al l eg ed defam at ory m at t er ; itis su f f i ci ent i f the su bstance of the char g e b e p r ov e d true , i rr e s pe c t i ve o f s l i g hti na c c ur a c y i n the d e t a i l s . ” 5 B. W i tkin, Su m m ar y of

C al i f ornia L aw § 49 5 (9th ed 19 88 ) ( ci t i ng cases)
. In this case , of cou r se, the b urden i s up on peti t i on ert o p r ov e f al si t y . See P h il a d elp h ia Ne w s p a p e rs , In c . v. He

pp s , 475 U. S. 76 7, 77 5, 89 L
. Ed. 2d 783, 106 S
. Ct
. 15 58 ( 19 86 )
. The essence of

that i nq uir y , ho w ever, r em ai ns the same w hether the b urden r e s t s upon pl a i nt i f

f or de f e nda nt . M i nor i na c c ur a c i e s do not a mount t o f a l s i t y s o l ong as “the su bstance, the g i st , the sti ng, of the li belou s c h a rge b e ju st i f i ed.” H euer v. Kee , 1 5 C al. A p p . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 4 , 5 9 P 2 d 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 6 4 ( 1 9 3 6 ); see al so A l i oto v. C ow l es C om m un i cati on s, I

nc. , 6 2 3 F2 d 6 1 6 , 6 1 9 ( C A 9 1 9 8 0 ); M ahe u v . Hughe s To olCo. , 56 9 F 2d 45 9, 46 5-46 6 ( C A 9 19 78 )
. Pu t ano ther way , the sta t em ent i s no tcon si dered fal se un l ess i t“w ou l d h ave a dif f er ent ef f ecton the m i nd o f

the re ader f

r om that w hich t he p l eaded truth w ou l d h ave prod uced
. ” R
. S ack, Li bel, S l and er , and R el at ed P rob lem s 1 3 8 ( 1 9 8 0 ); see, e. g., Wehli ng v. C olum bia Bro ad casti ng Syste m , 72 1 F 2d 5 0 6 , 5 0 9 ( C A 5 1 9 8 3 ); see gen erallyR
. Sm o ll a, L aw o f D efam ation § 5
. 0 8 ( 1 9 9 1 ). O u r d e f in itio n o f

ac tu a l m a lic e relie s u p o n th is h is to ric a l u n d e rs ta n d in g. M asso n v. New Yorker M ag azine, I nc. , 50 1 U. S. 49 6, 51 6- 17, 11 1 S
. Ct
. 24 19, 24 32- 33, 11 5 L
. Ed. 2d 4 4 7 , 4 7 2 -7 3 (1 9 9 1 ). I tbeing con ceded that Ser g eant Spicer i s a“ publ i c f i g ur e ” wi thi n the me a ni ng of the de fa mati on rul e , pr oof

i n s uppo r tof

hi s c l a i m mus tc onf

or m t o the “ cl e a r , c og e nta nd c onvi nc i ng eviden ce” rule. The s trug g l e wi t h the s t a nda r d f ora ppe l l a t e r e vi e w i n c a s e s i nvol vi ng the
“ c l e a r , c og e nta nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e ” rul e ha s be e n l ong a nd a r duou s f orr e a s ons wel l s t a t e d b y Jus t i c e Tr a y nor ’ s di s s e nti n Be e l e r v . Ame r i c an Tr us tCo. , 24 Ca l
. 2d 1, 14 7 P
. 2d 583 ( 1944 )
. He ob s e r ve d:

T h is i s n o t an o rdin ary c ivil c ase , h o w ev er, f o r, as th e m ajo ri ty o p inio n co n ced es, i t w as in cu m b e n t u p o n p laintif f to su p p o rth is co n ten ti o n b y ev ide n ce, “clear, satisfacto ry an d co n v inc ing; ex p li cit, un equ i vo cal and i nd i spu t able. ” We h le v. Pric e , 20 2 Ca l
. 39 4, 39 7, 2 6 0 P. 87 8 , 8 7 9 ; Goodf e l l ow v . Goodf

e l l ow , 21 9 Ca l
. 54 8, 55 4, 27 P. 2d 8 98
. W hi l e i tr e s t s pri mari l y wi th the tr i a l c ourtt o d e t e r mi ne whe t he rthe e vi de nc e i s c l e a ra nd con vinc i ng , i t s f i ndi ng i s no t

### -10- ne c e s s a r i l y c onc l us i ve , f ori n c a s e s g ove r ne d b y the rul e r e qui r i ng s uc h e vi de nc e “ t he s uf

f i c i e nc y of

t he evi de nc e t o su pportthe f i ndi ng s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d b y th e ap p e lla te co u rt in th e ligh t o f th a t ru le .” She e han v . Su l l i v an , 1 2 6 C al. 1 8 9 , 1 9 3 , 5 8 P. 54 3 , 5 4 4 ; see, also Mo u l t r i e v . Wr i ght , 1 54 C a l
. 52 0, 98 P. 25 7. In s uc h c a s e s i ti s the duty of the a ppe l l a t e c ourti n r e vi e wi ng t he evi de nc e t o d e t e r mi ne , no t w h eth e r th e tr ier o f

f acts co u ld reas o n ab lyco n clu d e tha t i t i s m o re p rob ab le that the f

act to b e p rov ed ex ists th an that itd o es n o t, as in the o rdin ary civil c ase w h ere o n lya p rep o n d eran ce o f the ev ide n ce is r equ i r ed, bu tw hether t he tri erof f act s cou l d r eason ably con cl ud e that i tis h i g hly p r ob able thatthe factex i st s. W hen ith olds t hat the tri al c o u rt ’s f ind ing m u st b e gov ern ed b y the s am e test w ith r elation to su b stan ti al ev ide n ce as o rdin aril y ap p li es i n o the r civ il case s, the ru le t hat the ev i den ce mu stbe cl earan d con vincing beco m es mean i ngl ess. T h ere is a co n tr ad icti o n in th u s d estro y ing the v it ality o f the ru le w h ile aff irm in g its s o u n d n e s s . Be e l e rv . Ame r i c an Tr us tCo. , 24 Ca l
. 2d 1, 32

- 33, 14 7 P
. 2d 583, 60 0 C al
. 19 44) (Tray n o r, J
. , d issen ti n g)
. The Su pr e me Cour tof

the Uni t e d S t a t e s a ddr e s s e d the pr obl e m unde r l y i ng Jus t i c e Tr a y nor ’ s di s s e nti n C olora do v. New M exi co , 4 6 7 U
. S
. 3 1 0 , 3 1 5 , 1 0 4 S.C t. 2 4 3 3 , 2 4 3 7 -38 ( 1 9 8 4 ). Said the C o u rt : [ B ] ecause ou ri nq uir y turns on the ev i den t i ar y m at er i al C olorado has of f e r e d i n s uppo rtof

i t s c ompl a i nt , we f

i nd i tne c e s s a r y t o e xpl a i n the stan d ard b y w h ich w e jud ge pro o f in actio n s f

o r eq u it ab le ap p o rt ion m en t. The f unc t i on of

a nys t a nda r d o f

pr oof is t o “ i ns truc tthe fa c t f i nde rc onc e r ni ng t he de g r e e of c onf i de nc e our s oc i e t y thi nks he sho uld h ave in the co rr ect ness of factual conclusion s f

or a part i cular t y pe o f adjudicat i on . ” I

n re W ins h ip , 3 9 7 U
. S
. 3 5 8 , 3 7 0 , 9 0 S.C t. 10 68 , 1 075, 2 5 L
. E d. 2d 3 68 ( 19 70 ) ( Ha r l a n, J
. , c on c urr i ng )
. By i nform i ng t he fact f

i nd eri n this m ann er , the sta nd ar d o f proof a l l ocates t he r i s k of e rr one ous j udg men t be t wee n the l i t i g a nt s a nd i ndi c a t e s the r el at i ve im po r t ance society att aches t o the ult i m at e deci si on . See Add i ngton v . Tex as , 44 1 U. S. 418 , 42 3- 425, 99 S. Ct
. 18 04, 18 07- 1 8 0 8 , 6 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 2 3 ( 1 9 7 9 ). L ast T erm , the C o u rtm ad e clear tha t C o lorad o ’s pro o f w o u ld b e ju d ged b y a c le a r-a n d -c o n v in c in g-ev id e n c e sta n d a rd
. C olora do v. New M exi co , 45 9 U. S. a t18 7- 188, a nd n. 13 , 10 3 S.Ct
. a t54 7- 548, an d n . 1 3
. In co n tr ast t o t h e o rdin ary civil case , w h ich typ icallyis jud ged b y a “p rep o n d eran ce o f the ev ide n ce” stan d ard , w e tho u ght a d ive rsion o f

interstate w ater sh o u ld be allow ed o n ly if C o lorad o co u ld pl a c e i n the ul t i mat e fa c t f i nde ran a bi di ng c onvi c t i on tha tthe truth o f

### -11- i t s f actual contenti on s ar e “h i g hl y prob able. ” See C
. M cC orm i ck , L aw o f E v id e n c e § 3 2 0 , p . 6 7 9 (1 9 5 4 ). C olora do v. New M exi co , 467 U
. S. 310, 315, 10 4 S
. Ct
. 24 33, 24 37- 38, 81 L
. Ed. 2d 2 4 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ). Estate of Acuff

v. O ’ Ling er , 5 6 S.W
. 3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 4 -35 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). Judg e F a r me r , s p e a k i n g f o rth i s c o u r tg a v e th e s e p a r a me t e r s o f th e “ c l e a ra n d c o nvi nc i ng e vi de nc e ” s t a nda r d.

Th i s cou r tr ecentl y at t em pted t o descr i be the c l ear and con vincing evidence st and ar d, exp l ai ning t hat

[ a ] l t houg h i tdo e s no tr e qui r e a s muc h c e r t a i nt y a s the “ be y ond a r eason able dou bt” sta n dard, the “cl earand con vincing evidence” st and ar d is m ore exacti ng than the “ prepo nd er ance of the ev i den ce” s ta n d a rd
. O ’ D an i elv. M essi er , 90 5 S. W
. 2d 182, 18 8 ( Te nn. App. 1 9 9 5 ); Brando n v . Wr i ght , 8 3 8 S.W
. 2 d 5 3 2 , 5 3 6 ( T en n . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). I n o r de rt o b e c l e a ra nd con vi nc i ng , e vi de nc e mus te l i mi na t e a ny s e r i ous ors ubs t a nt i a l doub t a bout the c orr e c t ne s s of the c onc l us i ons to b e d r a w n fro m th e ev id e n c e . Hodge s v . S. C. To of & Co. , 83 3 S
. W
. 2 d 8 9 6 , 9 0 1 n . 3 ( T en n . 1 9 9 2 ); O ’ D an i elv. M essi er , 905 S
. W
. 2d at 18 8
. Su ch ev ide n ce sh o u ld p rod u ce in th e fact-f ind er’s m ind a f

ir m be l i e f orc onvi c t i on a s t o t he truth o f the a l l e g a t i ons s oug htt o b e est abli shed
. O ’D a nielv. M essi er , 9 0 5 S.W
. 2 d at 18 8 ; Wi l t cher v. Bra dley , 70 8 S. W
. 2d 407, 41 1 ( Te nn. App. 19 85)
. In c ontr a s tt o the pr e pond e r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e s t a nda r d, c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng ev ide n ce sh o u ld d e m o n strate th at th e tru th o f the facts as serted is “h ig h lyp rob ab le” as o p p o sed to m e rely“m o re pro b ab le” tha n n o t. Lettner v. Plum m er , 5 5 9 S.W
. 2 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 7 ( T en n . 1 9 7 7 ); G o lds m ith v. R o b erts , 6 2 2 S
. W
. 2 d 4 3 8 , 4 4 1 (Te n n .A p p . 1 9 8 1 ); Bra nd on v. Wri ght , 8 3 8 S .W .2 d at 5 3 6
. M. C. G. , 1 9 9 9 W L 3 3 2 7 2 9 , a t * 6 (q u o tin g Bi ngha m v . Kni pp , No
. 0 2A0 1- 98 03

- CH0 0 0 8 3 , 1 9 9 9 W L8 6 9 8 5 , at *3 ( T en n . C t. A p p . Fe b
. 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 ) ( no perm . app. f i l ed ))
. I n r e C. W. W. , 3 7 S.W
. 3 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 4 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). Def e r e nc e t o the tr i a l j udg e on i s s ue s o f c r e d i bi l i t yi s apa r t i c ul a r l y tr oubl e s ome c ons i de r a t i on i n the l aw of

defam at i on . O ver t he vi g orou s obj ect i on s of J usti ces R ehn qu i st , O ’ C on ner a nd W hit e, the U n it ed States S u p rem e C o u rt f o reclo sed su ch d ef

eren ce i n ap p ellate r ev iew
. Fin d ing the “clearly e rr one ous ” s t a nda r d o f

r e vi e w of

F. R. C. P. 52( a ) i na de qua t e a nd i na ppl i c a bl e t o a ppe l l a t e r e vi e w of defam at i on f

i nd i ngs, w hether t ho se f i nd i ngs w er e mad e by j ud g e or j ury , the su prem e cou r tm and at ed ind ep en d en t de n ovo ap p ellate rev iew
. I n d if f eren ti ating b etw een the “c learlyerr o n eo u s” stan d ard o f F .R .C .P . 5 2 ( a ) a n d w h a t i t r e fe r s t o a s “ th e ru l e o f in d e p e n d e n tre v i e w ” m a n d a t e d b y New York Ti mes Co. v . Su l l i v an , the su prem e cou r tho l ds:

### -12- T h e d if f eren ce b e tw e en the tw o ru les, h o w ev er, is m u ch m o re th an a m ere m at t erof

deg r ee. For the rul e of i nd epen den tr eview assi g ns to j ud g es a c ons t i t ut i ona l r e s pons i bi l i t y t ha t c a nnot be de l e g a t e d t o the tr i e rof f a c t , whe the rthe fact f i nd i ng f un ct i on be perf

orm ed in the part i cularcase by a j ury or by a tr i al j ud g e.

. . . . The r equ i r e men tof

i nde pe nde nta ppe l l a t e r e vi e w r e i t e r a t e d i n New York Ti mes Co. v . Su l l i v an i s arul e o f federal con s t i tut i ona l l a w. Ite mer g e d f r om the e xi g e nc y of

de c i di ng c onc r e t e c a s e s ; i t i s l a w i n i t s pu r e s tf orm unde rou rc ommonlaw h erit age. It r ef

lects a d eep ly h e ld co n v icti o n that jud ges– an d p arti cu larl y M e mbe r s of

thi s Court–mus te xe r c i s e s uc h r e vi e w i n o r de rt o p r e s e r ve the pr e c i ous l i be r t i e s e s t a bl i s he d a nd or da i ne d b y the Cons t i tut i on. T he qu e s t i on w hethe rthe ev ide n ce in the reco rd in a d efam ation case is of the co n v inc ing clari tyr eq u ir ed to str i p the utt er ance of

Fir stA m end m ent pr otect i on i s no tm er el y a qu est i on f or the tri er of f act . Ju dges, as exp osit ors o f the C on st i tuti on , m ust i nd epen den t l y decide w hether the ev ide n ce in the r eco rd i s su f f icien t to cros s the co n stitu ti o n al thres h o ld th at ba rs t he e ntr y of

a nyj udg men ttha ti s no ts uppo r t ed by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng pr oof of
“ a c tu a l m a lic e .” Bo se C orp . v. C on sum ers Un i on of U
. S., I nc. , 466 U
. S. 485 at501, 51 0- 11, 10 4 S
. Ct
. 19 49 a t19 59, 1 9 6 5 , 8 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 5 0 2 at 51 6 -17 , 5 2 3 ( 1 9 8 4 ). Admi t t e dl y the de t e r mi na t i on of the Uni t e d S t a t e s Su pr e me Cour t on thi s qu e s t i on was the su bject of v ig o rou s in terna l disp u te w ith in the c o u rt . J u stice S tev en s w rote th e m ajo ri tyo p inio n in w hich J usti ces Brenn an, M ar s ha l l , Bl a c kmun , and Po w el l con curr ed. C hief Ju st i ce B urg ercon curr ed i n the j udg men twhi l e Jus t i c e s Re hn qu i st , O ’ Conne r , a nd W hi t e s tr ong l y di s s e nt e d, a s s e r t i ng the app l i cabil i t y of

the “cl ear l y err on eou s st and ar d o f F. R
. C
. P. R ule 52(a)
. ” The s e e mi ng l y a l l

- e nc ompa s s i ng l a ng uag e of the ma j or i t y op i ni on i n Bo se ha s be e n the s ubj e c tof

ma nyr e f

i ne men t s a nd muc h i nt e rpr e t a t i on, e ve n wi thi n the Su pr e me Cour ti t s e l f, a s the maj or i t y opi ni on of

Jus t i c e St e ve ns s hows i n Har t e - Hanks , I nc . v . Conna ughton , 491 U. S. 657, 10 9 S. Ct
. 26 78, 10 5 L
. Ed. 2d 562 ( 1989 )
. A s e pa r a t e c onc urr i ng op i ni on byJus t i c e W hi t e j oi ne d b y the Chi e f Jus t i c e , t og e t he rwi t h se pa r a t e con c urr i ng opi ni ons by Justi c e s Bl a c kmun a nd Ken ne dy , a nd a n e xt e ns i ve a nd s tr i ki ng l y e xpos i t i ve c onc urr e nc e by J usti ce Sc a l i a l e a ve wha ts e e med t o b e the de c i s i ve ho l di ng i n Bo se rath e r d if f ic u lt to ap p ly
. B
. Th e factu al ba sis o f the d efam ation claim I n f i nd i n g th a t M r. Pi ckard had defam ed M r . Sp i certhe tri al j ud g e held that Pi ckard had a c t ua l kn owl e dg e tha thi s s t a t e men t s t o the pr e s s we r e f a l s e . W e mus tno w r e vi e w the r e c or d a nd de t e r mi ne thr oug h o uri nde pe nde nti nve s t i g at i on the r e of whe the rorno tc l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e e s t a bl i s he s t ha t Pi c ka r d e i t he r kne w tha t hi s s t a t e men t s wer e fa l s e or tha t he m ade those s ta te m e n ts in rec k le s s d is re gard o f th e tru th o r f

a ls ity th e re o f
.

### -13-

As Pl a i nt i f

fs mus te s t a bl i s h b y c l e a r a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e “ a c tua l ma l i c e ” on the pa r tof M r . Pi c ka r d i n o r de rt o r e c ove rfordef a mati on, t he pr i mary i nqui r y m us tbe - - t o p a r a phr a s e Se na t or H ow ar d B aker’ s cel ebrat ed inqu i r y o f the W at er g at e er a - - “w hat di d M r . Pickar d k no w and w hen di d h e kn ow i t ?” In c ons i de r i ng thi s r e c or d o n the de fa mati on i s s ue , the t i me f r a me of the un f ol di ng e ve nt s i s vi t a l
. T he drug s t i ng , i mmedi a t e l y a f t e rwhi c h S e r g e a ntSp i c e rwa s pl a c e d o n a dmi ni s tr a t i ve l e a ve byM r . Pi c ka r d, occu r r ed M a y 8, 19 98. T he f i r s tEl r od pol y g r a ph e xa mi na t i on oc c urr e d M a y 22 , 19 98. T he Cha r l e s Sc ot tpo l y g r a ph e xa mi na t i on of Sp i c e roc c urr e d Ju ne 8, 19 98. Th e sec on d E l r od po l y g r aph exam i nati on occu rr ed J un e 11 , 19 98
. The al l eg ed defam at ory art i cl es a ppe a r e d i n the Da i l y Ne ws Journa l on June 17 a nd 19 of 19 98, i n the Na s hvi l l e Te nne s s e a n o n Ju ne 1 8 , 1 9 9 8 , an d in th e R u th e rf o rd C o u rie r o n J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 9 8
. I n h olding M r . Pickard ’s s ta te m ents i n these new spap erart i cl es t o b e defam at ory , the tri al c ourts t a t e d: The mos t i rr e s pons i bl e thi ng tha twa s do ne bya nyof the of f i c i a l s of the C it y o f

L aV erg n e w as w h en M r. Pick ard , w h o w as th e d e s ign ated em p loy er - - desig nated em ploy ee by the Cit y of L aV er g ne, the o nly on e authori zed to m ake p r ess r el eases and / or t o desi g nate som eon e t o mak e press r el eases on beh al f of the p oli ce de pa r t men t , he i nvol ve d the me di a a nd t ot a l l y rui ne d Of f i c e rSp i c e r ’ s r e put a t i on.

. . . . M r . Sp i c e rwa s the on e who i ns i s t e d o n t a ki ng the po l y g r a ph.

The po l y g r a ph was s e tup bythe TBI , a nd the r e ’ s on l y af e w que s t i ons t h a tc a n b e a s k e d in a p o l ygr a p h t e s t . H o w e v e r , a s i s u s u a l p r a c t i c e b e t w e e n a t t o r n e ys f or def end ants a nd the p oly g r aph ex am i ners, the at t orney ’ s enti t l ed to r eview tho se qu est i on s, see i f

they ar e t oo op en-end ed, t oo op en f or i nterpret at i on , m ake sure that th e y are - - th e q u e s tio n s are p ro p e r so th e y ca n h a v e a v a lid p o ly grap h res u lt.

T h e re ’s av e ry go o d re a s o n p o lygra p h te s ts a re n o t a d m is s ib le in c o u rt . Pol y g r a ph t e s t s d o no tpr ove a ny one ’ s g ui l tori nnoc e nc e . Ne i the rs houl d the y be used t o p r ov e theirg uil tor i nn ocen ce t o the pu bli c.

I n f a c t , the Ci t y of L a Ver g ne i n mak i ng s t a t e men t s t o the pr e s s a bout Of f i c e rSp i c e rtr i e d h i m a nd c onvi c t e d h i m i n the c ourtof pu bl i c op i ni on be f

or e he was e ve n c ha r g e d wi t h a cri m e. The c ha r g e s tha twe r e l a t e rbr oug htdo wn by i ndi c t m ent h a d n othi ng t o d o wi th mos tof the s t a t e men t s ma de t o the pr e s s , bu t ba s i c a l l y the Courtf

i nds tha ton June 17, 1998, t he ci t y a dmi ni s tr a t or , Don P i c ka r d, made de famat or y s t at ement s t o the pr es s, a nd t hus be g an notonl y one i nci den t, nume r ous i nc i de nt s , i nc i de nc e s of de fa mati on.

. . . . M r. P ic k a rd h a d b e e n w it h th e d e p a rt m e n t s in c e D e c e m b e r o f ‘9 7 . M r. P ick ard k n ew that the statem en ts h e m ad e to th e p ress on J u n e 1 7 w ere false. Id o n ’t f ind h e reck lessly m ad e the m . H e k n ew the y w ere false. T h e ev ide n ce in the reco rd

### -14-

i s that he w as aware i n ear l y ‘ 98 abo ut an a l l eg at i on abo ut a g un that Of f i cerSp i cer a nd Of f i cer- - we l l , Of

f i c e rW a t s on di s a g r e e d. L e tme f i nd my e xa c tno t e s a bout t his. Ido n’tw ant t o m i squ ote this. Iapo l ogi ze, I ’ ve g ot a w ho l e l ot of no t es. Al l r i g ht
. Th e r e wa s a n i nt e r vi e w wi th M r . Pi c ka r d, Of f i c e rW a t s on, con f i den t i al i nform ant. The con f i den t i al i nform ant was brou g ht i n concerning back i n e a r l y ‘ 98 t ha tOf

f i c e rSa m Spi c e r ’ s r e put a t i on was a t t a c ke d. Sh e w anted t o ad vise M r . Pickar d, O f f i cerW a t son that tho se a l l e g a t i ons w e r e untrue , t ha the ha d noteve rw a r ne d he rabo uta nydrug de a l e r , s he di dn’ tkn ow a ny t hi ng a bout hi m doi ng a ny thi ng bu tbe i ng a n e xc e l l e nt , truthf ul person , g oo d o f

f i cerf or 15 y ear s. M r. P ic k ard w as p resen t. H e h eard it
. Th ere are tap es to p rov e it , t he r e a r e tr a ns c r i pt s t o pr ove i t , he wa s the r e . Al s o, M r . Pi c ka r d wa s pr e s e ntdu r i ng the att em p ted seco n d li e d etecto r test.

W he n M r . Pi c ka r d made t he s e s t a t e men t s t o the pr e s s i n Ju ne of ‘ 98, h e h ad alr ead y b een p rov ide d w ith the resu lt s f rom the test. Th ank f ully M r . Sp i cerm ade a t ape, he and his at t orney , of that mee t i ng . And t hr oug h tha tt a pe i t ’ s obvi ous w ho was the r e a nd who kn e w wha t . T he tr a ns c r i pti s apa r tof

thi s r e c or d. Of

f i c e rSpi c e rne ve rr e f

us e d t o t a ke the po l y g r a ph t e s t . He wa s s t i l l tr y i ng t o c oo pe r a t e wh e n he l e f tthe r oo m. I t ’ s cl eart o m e f

r om r eading the tr anscri pt M r . Th om pso n w as there, t he investi g at or. He k new he’d al r ead y p a s s e d on e po l y g r aph
. He k new w hich qu est i on s had been place d o n that
. M r . Pickar d k new abo ut tho se po l y g r aph s.

. . . . The on e who’ s g ui l t y of the de fa mati on i s M r . Pi c ka r d b e c a us e , a g a i n, w h o ask ed o r h ad the au tho ri tyto h av e the ch ief m ak e statem en ts t o the p o li ce - - to the p re s s . I t w as M r. Pick ard
. M r. M o rr is o n lysp o k e af ter co n f erri n g w ith M r. P ick ard an d M r. Th o m p so n . I t w as M r. P ick ard ’s resp o n sib il it y f o r the d am ages to O f f ic e r S p ic e r h e re .

. . . . Now, h o w ma n y i n c i d e n c e s a r e th e r e o f d e fa ma t i o n ? T h a t ’ s t he qu est i on t o be answ er ed. B eg i nn i ng w i th the f i r st
- - l et m e g et m y ori g i nal exhibit s. A ll righ t, so rry . T ria l E x h ib it N u m b e r 1 2
. . . .

[ T] hir d p ar ag r aph say s, Sp i cerw as f i r ed o n T hu r sday af

t er he re f used to an sw er certain q u estio n s d u ri n g a p o ly gr ap h test, C it y A d m inistrato r D o n Pick ard e xpl a i ne d. F o r the rea so n s Is tated e arli er, th at w as ab so lutely a f alse statem en t. He kne w, he wa s t he r e . Of f i c e rSpi c e rdi d n otr e f

us e t o a ns werthe qu e s t i ons du r i ng the p o ly gr ap h test.

Now, the r e a r e s ome a l l e g e d de fa mat or y s t a t e men t s tha tIdo n’ tf i nd t o b e defam at ory . Fo r exam ple, several po l i ce ag encies hav e been i nv olved i n this
.

### -15-

Th at ’ s no ti n an d o f

i t sel f defam at ory . In context w i th the r estof this st ory i tm ay be, butthe s t a t e men tbyi t s e l f c oul d b e true ba s e d o n i nt e rpr e t a t i on. I t c onc e r ne d s e ve r a l pa s ti nc i de nt s . W e a r e a l s o i nve s t i g a t i ng al otof a l l e g a t i ons br oug htt o us f r om vari ous i ndi vi dua l s a nd f ol l owi ng up on the l e a ds tr y i ng t o ve r i f

y the m. W as that sta t em ent true? I f taken in con t ext o f

the factthat he kn ew he ’ d a l r e a dypa s s e d o ne po l y g r a ph a nd tha ts ome of these i ndi vi dua l s ha d a l r e a dy r ecanted these st at em ents o rstat ed thatthey w er e i n err or, i tw as the w r on g Sam they wer e t a l ki ng a bout , the y ha d a l r e a dyve r i f i e d a ttha tt i me tha tmos tof thi s i nf or mati on w asn ’tco rr ect. B ut Ido n’tkn ow that that speci f i c st at e m ent sa y i ng several po l i ce a g e nc i e s a r e i nv ol ve d, t ha ta pp e a r s t o be a tl e a s tp a r t i a l l y true i f y ou c on s i de rthe T BI p o l ygr a p h e ra n a ge n c y, a n d i f y o u c o n s i d e rs o m e in s u r a n c e in v e s t i ga t i v e a ge n c y a po l i ce ag ency , cou l d b e true.

And e noug h i nf

or mati on t o j us t i f

y t e r mi na t i ng . I f the a r t i c l e wi thout an y thin g else ju st said , w ell, w e h ad en o u gh in f o rm ation , w e jus t f

elt jus ti f ied in t e r mi na t i ng hi m, Sp i c e rl e f t , tha twoul dn’ tbe defam at or y . Buti n c ont e xtwi th the r estof the sta t em ent that i t ’ s based on al l eg at i on s and being the f ocu s of cr i m i nal inv estig ation , all o f

that m ak es it d efam ato ryin th at co n tex t. L ike Isaid , w h y d idn ’tthey jus t f ir e h im li k e C ap tain W o lf e. C ap tain W ol f e the y di dn’ tde s tr oyhi s r e put a t i on. ButI thi nk I g ot my a ns wer t o tha tqu e s t i on y est er day w hen Iasked M r . Pickar d, and M r . Pickar d -

- Iask ed h i m w hy they i nv i t ed all the p ress th a t d ay , w h y they sp o k e o n ly- - the d rug rai d , w h y d id th ey inv it e all t h e p r e s s th a td a y.

The y wa nt e d t o i mpr ove the i mag e of the po l i ce d e pa r t men t . T he ar t i cl e i t sel f

sho w s they ’ r e tr y i ng t o sho w they ’ r e cl eaning ho use. Per son al g ai n, y es. Pe r s ona l r e put a t i on, y e s , f orM r . Pi c ka r d. I f the city loo k e d b a d b ef o re an d h e f

ir es a “c o rru p t” po li ce o f f icer, i t ’ d ma ke h i m l oo k g oo d. He ’ d c om e i n the r e a nd c l e a ne d ou tthe c orrup t i on . He wan t e d the pr e s s t o k now tha t . He’ s ve r y ope n, ve r y l oud a bouti ti n t e r ms of he ke pt t a l ki ng t o t he m. Di dn’ ts t op wi t h tha toc c a s i on, ke ptt al king t o the pr e s s , ke ptr e pe a t i ng the s a me a l l e g a t i ons . Ca us e d M r . Sp i c e run t ol d h umi l i a t i on.

L et m e go th rou gh a fe w o the r alleg ation s. J u n e 1 8 , R u the rf o rd C ou r i er . Agai n, qu est i on s. Several po l i ce ag encies hav e been inv olved i n this
. Pickard sa id of

the investi g at i on , i tcon cer ns several past i nciden t s. W e ar e al so inv estig ating a lo t o f a ll egati o n s b rou ght to u s f rom v ariou s in d ivid u als an d are f ol l owi ng u p on the l e a ds tr y i ng t o ve r i f y the m. N e v e rt h e le s s , P ic k a rd s a id t h e c it y h a d e n o u gh in fo rm a ti o n to ju s ti fy t e r mi na t i ng Spi c e r . The dep a r t men ti s con t i nui ng t o f ul l y i nve s t i g a t e the s i tua t i on. W ol f e ’ s t e r mi na t i on c oi nc i de d wi th t he l e a vi ng of the ou t g oi ng c hi e f, M i ke Pa tr i c k, w h o left las t w e e k
.

### -16- T hi s i s v e r y i mp ort a nt . “ W i th the r e s truc turi ng of the d e par t me nt , we d ecid ed w e n eed ed a n ew an d d if f eren t lead ersh ip in the p o li ce d ep artm en t, ” P ick ard sai d. A nd then there w as another ar t i cl e.

L i ke Is a i d, a s f

a ra s wha t M r . M orr i s s a i d, I don’ t thi nk he ’ s g ui l t y of actu al m alice, b u t If

ind that M r. Pick ard is r esp o n sib le i n ter m s o f h av ing M o rr is sp eak to th e p re ss. H e’s the o n e tha t t o ld h im
. A n d b asica ll y w h at th e thin gs M r. M orr i s had sai d w er e r epeated things that O f f i cer - - that M r . Pickard al r eady st at ed t o the press
. A n d then o n Th u rsd ay J u n e 2 5 , the article i n R u the rf o rd C o u ri er, Spi c e ra15

- y e a rve t e r a n o f the for c e ha d b e e n u nde rs us pi c i on of wr ong doi ng by d ep artm en t and cit y o f

f icials p ri o r to h is d ism issal, an d h is r ef u sal to co o p erate w ith the M ay 2 2 test an d th u s the in v estig ation gav e the c it y a m p le rea so n f o r d ism issal, Pi c ka r d s a i d. Ido n’tkn ow ho w y ou cou l d b e any m ore de fa m a to ry . A nd then Pickard sai d h i s att orney picked o ut seven qu est i on s they d i dn ’ tw ant as ked
. Ir ead t he tr anscri pt of

w hat happ ened that day
. That’ s no ttrue. A bso l utel y f al se. Th ese f i nd i ngs of

the tr i al co urtw er e issued f r om the ben ch an d incorpo r at ed int o the f i nal or de rof De c e mbe r5, 20 02. W e mu stno w r eview the fact s of the case and ind epen den t l y d et er m i ne w hether or no tcl ear and con vincing evidence est abli shes defam at i on t o b e “hig hly pro b a b le. ” Acu f f v. O ’ Ling er , 56 S. W
. 2d 527 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 20 01)
. T he r e c or d e s t a bl i s he s tha t a s i de f r om hi s own p r e s e nc e du r i ng t he f i r stElr od po l y g r aph of

M ay 22 , 19 98 , and du r i ng the re cess of the secon d Elr od p oly g r aph t est of Ju ne 1 1, 19 98 , Pickar d’s sol e sou r ces of i nform at i on abo ut the p oly g r aph t est pri or t o the al l eg ed de fa mat or y pr e s s s t a t e men t s a r e c onve r s a t i ons wi th E l r od a nd Tho mps on. A t this po int, it is ap p rop ri ate to ad d ress th e inh eren t dif f icu lt ies in reco n cili n g d ef eren ce to t he be t t e r j udg men t of t he tr i a l c ourt on matt e r s of c r e di bi l i t y wi th the “ hi g hl y prob able” r equ ire m e n ts of

the cle arand con vincing evidence rule. This c ase i s so fact
- sensit i ve thatal m ost ev ery thin g d ep en d s o n cred ibility . O n the q u estio n o f cred ibility o f

Sp icer vi s- a-vi s hi s a c c us e r s , the tr i a l j udg e de c i s i ve l y c a me down on t he si de of Spi c e ra nd wi th g ood r e a s on. W hi l e a bs ol vi ng the de f e nda ntTh omps on of

a nyki nd of

de fa mati on, the tr i a l c our tob s e r ve d a s t o h i s i nve s t i g a t i on of S e r g e a ntS pi c e r : “ Now , I ’ m g l a d he ’ s n otaj ud g e b e c a us e I wou l dn ’ t wa nt hi m t o be aj ud g e o n my c a s e be c a us e M r . Th omps on doe s n’ tknow how t o l i s t e n t o both si de s of the s t or y . He l i s t e ns t o o ne si de an d h e t akes t hat evi den ce and d i sr eg ar ds ev er y thing on the o ther si de o f the stor y . ” A s t o the w i t ness, po l y g r aph ex am i ner M al colm E l r od , his t est i m on y speaks v olum es. Af t er d e t e r m i n i n g t h a tth e M a y 2 2 , 1 9 9 8 p o l ygr a p h t e s t w a s “ i n c o n c l u s i v e ” b e c a u s e o f “ e rr a t i c p h ys i o l o gy, e rr a t i c tr a c i ng , e rr a t i c p ol y g r a ph i t s e l f, ” h e r e s po nd s t o t he quest i on of wh y the y we r e e rr a t i c . He t est i f i es: Q
. W hy w er e they err at i c?

A
. Y ou w ant an answ erthat Icou l d p r ov e or w hat Ibeli eve?

### -17- Q
. P ro v e f

irs t. A
. Ido n’thav e any i dea. Q
. B el i eve? A
. Ibeli eve M r . Sp i cerm ade them err at i c. Q
. W hat di d h e do t o m ake them err at i c. A
. M o v em en ts, d eep b reath ing, su ch as th at.

. . . . Q
. D id y o u m ak e an y all egati o n s im m e d ia te ly af ter the test tha t M r. S p ic e r w a s in te n tio n a lly in te rf e rin g? A. T o hi m? Q
. Y es, sir
. A
. N o t th at Ir eca ll
. Q. Di d y ou mak e thos e t o M r . Th omps on? A. Af

t e rthe t e s tIbe l i e ve Ipr oba bl y di d. Q. Di d y ou t e l l M r . Pi c ka r d? A. P os s i bl y o rp r ob a bl y , Id on ’ tk no w.

. . . . Q
. M r. H il an d ask ed y o u at th is p arti cu lar m eetin g af ter the test is adm i nist er ed w hy i tw as i nco nclusive? A. Id on ’ tk no w. Q
. D i d y ou t el l M r . H i l and that i tcou l d b e a nu m ber of things? A
. T h at w o u ld b e a n o rm al an sw er, y es, sir
. Q
. D i d yo u t e l l M r . H i l a n d th a t i t c o u l d b e , fo r i n s t a n c e , j u s tab a d d a y? A
. C ou l d h ave. Q. D i d y ou t e l l M r . Hi l a nd tha t i t c oul d ha ve be e n the mac hi ne w as h a v i n g a b a d d a y? A. No. Q
. D id y o u give M r. H il an d a n y o the r reas o n w h y itw as d eterm ine d to be incon cl usive? A
. Id o n ’tr eca ll
. Ico u ld h av e told h im a n u m b er of thin gs, b u t Id o n ’t recall sp ecif

icallyw h at Itold h im n o , sir
. Q. Di d y ou e ve rma ke as t a t e men tt o M r . Hi l a nd orM r . Sp i c e r that the resu lt s w ere inc o n clu siv e b eca u se M r. Sp icer i n terf ered w ith the test? A
. Id o n ’ tb e l i e v e Id i d th a td a y. I n r esp o n se to the in q u iry o f co u n sel as to w h y M r. E lr o d d id n o t p rov ide th is in f o rm ation to M r . H i l a n d o rM r . S p i c e r , t h e w i t n e s s E l r o d fa v o r s u s w i th th e fo l l o w i n g a m a z i n g t e s t i m o n y:

Q
. W h y n o t?

### -18- A
. Th e g oal was to g i ve a t estthat wo uld h ave con cl usive r esult s, ei ther d ece p ti v e o r n o n d ece p ti v e. O n e o f the thin gs th at a po ly gr ap h ex am ine r m u st d o is tr y t o ap pe a rt o be [ unbi a s e d]
. And i f It ol d h i m tha tIbe l i e ve the y ’ r e i nc onc l us i ve b eca u se y o u r clien t i s m ess ing w ith m e, itw o u ld p u t him o n n o ti ce th at Ib eliev e h is c l i e nti s no tt e l l i ng the truth whi c h woul d n otl e a ve the i mpr e s s i on tha tIwoul d b e [un b iased ] , an d m y attem p ts to g et h im to co m e b ack in f o r ad d it ion al t estin g w o u ld no tbe veryef

f ect i ve.

. . . . Q. Thi s i s Ex hi bi tNumbe r2 i n thi s tr i a l
. Can y ou i de nt i f y tha ta s the a f f i da vi ttha ty ou s i g ne d? A
. Y es, sir
. Q
. L oo k at parag r aph 3, pleas e. A
. O k a y. Q. Rea d i tou tl oud. A
. Th e t echn i cal r esultof po l y g r aph w as i nco nclusive; ho w ever, based upon my ob s e r va t i ons of M r . Sp i c e r , hi s lack o f c oope r a t i on wi th the t e s t , a nd the t otal i t y of

the cir cum st ances surr ou nd i ng the tes t , Iw as of the o pinion that he w as being un truthf

ul. Altho u gh , Icann ot r em em ber the ex actcon versat i on s t o the best o f m y r eco ll ectio n , Iex p resse d m y o p inio n co n cern ing M r. Sp icer’s dish o n esty to St a c e Th omps on. Q
. W h y d id yo u t e ll M r. T h o m p s o n if y o u w a n te d to re m a in [u n b ia s e d ]? A
. Iw an ted t o r em ain u n b iased to M r. Sp icer. Id idn ’tw an t t o r em ain un biased t o an y bo dy el se.

. . . . Q
. W e r e y o u a b l e t o g i v e af a i rt e s tt o Mr
. S p i c e rth i s s e c o n d t i me a r ound ? A
. Ith i n k Ic o u l d h a v e if I w o u l d h a v e h a d th e o p p o r tu n i t y. Q. W oul d y ou ha ve be e n u nbi a s e d? A. Yes , s i r , i n t he que s t i ons a nd the r e a di ng of the c ha r t s . Ido n’ tha ve a ch o ice in th at. Q
. E v en tho u gh y o u h ad f o rm u lated an o p inio n a s o f th e f ir st t est tha t M r. S p icer w as ly ing; co rr ect? A
. C o rr ect. Q. Ig ue s s , t he n, Inee d t o know i f y ou t hi nk s ome bodyi s l y i ng a f t e rthe f ir st test is inc o n clu siv e, are y o u lean ing eithe r w ay goin g into the sec o n d test o r are y ou s t i l l t ot a l l y un bi a s e d? A
. I ’m g o ing to ap p e a r u n b ia sed , b u t y eah , I ’m g o ing to th ink that this g uya ppe a r s t o b e un truthf ul , thi s g uywa s n’ tc oope r a t i ve , mor e tha n l i ke l y he i s g oi ng to fail the seco n d test.T h e p re se n c e o f th e ne w s m e d ia in th is c a s e , fr o m t h e b e g inn ing , ha s b e e n so m e thin g o f a p u z z le . A ll 2 d efend ant s and em p l o y ees of the C i t y o f

L aV ergne strenuousl y d eny havi ng no t i f i ed a ny news med i a o f

the up co m i ng d rug s t i ng. Itis w i t h rem arkab l e cl ai rvoyance t hatthe new s m ed i a d escend ed in m ass atthe LaV ergne P o l i ce D ep art m ent at4: 00 a
. m. on th e mor n i n g of M ay 8, 1998. 

### -19- B etw e e n the E l r od po l y g r aph t estof M ay 22 and Ju ne 1 1, 19 98 , M r . Sp i cerhad sub m i t t ed t o a pol y g r a ph t e s tbyM r . Robe r tSc ot ton Jun e 8, 19 98, a nd i n thi s t e s tSp i c e rha d b e e n f ound t o b e c ompl e t e l y truthf

ul
. Af t e rt out i ng hi mse l f

t o b e the be s tpo l y g r a ph e xa mi ne ri n the St a t e of T en n ess ee, M r. Elro d v o iced h is o p inio n o f p o ly gr ap h ex am ine r S co tt : Q. W hyd on ’ ty ou h a ve av e r y h i g h r e g a r d of h i m? A
. I ’ve ru n too m an y p o ly gr ap h tes ts b eh ind h im a n d w e’v e h ad o p p o site r esult s. Q
. A n d y o u w e re righ t an d h e w a s w ro n g? A. W e l l , i ta ppe a r s tha twa y on some of t he m I ’ ve r un. And s ome of the others Ikn ow of, that peop l e hav e con f essed af t erthey had the secon d testw hen they passed his.

A s ob ser ved by the tri al j ud g e, Stace Th om pso n did no tg eti nto d efam at i on tr ou ble because he k ept hi s m ou t h sh ut. W hatever m ay be the cr edibil i t y prob l em s i nv olving M r . Pickar d’s sources 2 of i nf or mati on c onc e r ni ng t he pol y g r a ph t e s t s , the s e pr obl e ms do nota ddr e s s di r e c t l y the qu e s t i on relev an t t o actu al m alice - w h at M r. P ick ard k n ew an d w h en h e k n ew it
. Fo cu sin g d ir ectly o n this pr obl e m, the Da i l y Ne ws Journa l s t or y of W e dne s da y , June 17, 1998 , a s s e r t s : “ Spi c e r was f i r e d o n Thu r s da y a f

t e rhe r e f us e d t o a ns werc e r t a i n q ue s t i ons du r i ng apo l y g r a ph t e s t , c i t y a dmi ni s tr a t orDon Pi c ka r d e xpl a i ne d. ” T hi s s t a t e men ti s s i mpl y no t true a nd Pi c ka r d kne w tha ti twa s no ttrue a tthe tim e h e m a d e it. The se quence o f

e ve nt s l e a di ng u p t o the J un e 1 7, 1 99 8 s t a t e me nti s t e di ou s b utv i t a l
. On June 10 , 19 98, Edwar d L
. H i l a nd, att or ne y forSa m Spi c e r , add r e s s e d a l e t t e rt o S t a c e Th omps on a nd M a l c ol m El r od, whi c h he ha nd- de l i ve r e d t o the m pr i or t o the t i me tha t the June 11 El r od pol y g r a ph t e s tw a s to b e gi n . T h i s le tt e ris s e l f- e x p l a n a t o ry: P u rsu an t t o m y tel ep h o n e co n v er s ation w ith M r. Elro d o n J u n e 8 , 1 9 9 8 , If eel itis no w necessar y t o rec i t e the h i st ory of ou rvari ou s deal i ngs in the ab ov e r ef er enced m atter. O n M ay 8, 19 98 , m y cl i ent, Sg t . Sam Sp i cerw as pu t on adm i nistr at i ve l eave w i th p ay up on i nstructi on f

r om the city m anage r , M r . Pickar d, g i ven t o C hief o f P oli ce M i chael G
. Patr i ck. N o speci f

i c charg es w er e m ade i n the noti ce g i ven t o M r . Sp i cer . Ch i ef Patr i ck cla ssi f

i ed them as “al l eg at i on s . . . brou g ht t o M r . Pickard’ s at t enti on , w hich Ihav e l i m i t ed k no w l edge of atthis ti m e. ”

### -20-

P ri o r to rece ivin g the ab o v e n o tice , Sgt. Sp icer ha d b een called into a sess ion w ith Stace Th om pso n w here he w as r ead h i s M i r and a r i g hts and g i ven [ a] l i m i t ed r eci t at i on of

som e al l eg at i on s m ade b y un kn ow n p er son s ag ai nst him
. S gt. Sp i cer the n elected to o b tain co u n sel b u t f u rth er stated that h e w o u ld b e m o re th an h ap p y to u n d e rta k e a p o ly grap h tes t w ith rega rd to th e alle gatio n s . H e th e n w e n t h o m e . Sgt
. Sp i cercon t act ed m e al m ost i m m ediat el y and Ic ommuni cat ed b y l et t erw i th C hief Patr i ck ann ou ncing m y repres entat i on o f S g t . S picer
. Ir equ est ed thatC hief Patri ck f or war d a nyqu e s t i ons f

ormy c l i e ntt o my of

f i c e . I woul d i n tur n me e twi th myc l i e nt a n d re s p o n d p r o m p t l y. Upon r e c e i ptof

my l e t t e r , a nd knowi ng of my r e pr e s e nt a t i on, Det e c t i ve Th omps on c ont a c t e d my c l i e ntdi r e c t l y a nd de man de d tha the a ppe a ra tthe Po l i c e De pa r t men t i n L a Ver g ne f

orapo l y g r a ph t e s ton M a y 22 , 1998
. W hi l e Iwa s c onc e r ne d wi th the fa c ttha tthe i nve s t i g a t i ng of f i c e rby

- pa s s e d me t o c ont a c t my c l i e nt [ , ] Is t i l l a g r e e d, af ter co n su lt ation w ith m y clien t, f o r S gt . S p icer to ap p ear f o r the p o lygra p h . T h is w as based alm o s t c o m p let el y up on the w i sh o f m y cl i ent t o laythis matt ert o rest si nce h e had no t hing t o h i de. M y cl i ent and Iapp ear ed f or the tes tator abo ut 10 a. m . on M a y 2 2 , 199 8. A f t er e xt e ns i ve pr e - t e s ti nt e r vi e w, Sg t . Spi c e r , my s e l f a nd Ski p E l r od a g r e e d o n the c ont e nt a nd s c ope of

c e r t a i n q ue s t i ons whi c h we r e t o b e a s ke d. Ce r t ai n of the a l l e g a t i ons wer e no tt ouc he d u pon ba s e d o n the de c i s i on of Ski p El r od. He s t a t e d tha ti f “ y our c l i e ntpa s s e s thi s t e s ti ti s ob vi ous tha tthe r e s tof the a l l e g a t i ons s houl d b e c l e a r e d. Iwa s the n a s ke d t o l e a ve the r oom a nd Ag e ntEl r od a nd my c l i e ntr e mai ne d i n the t e s t i ng r oom a l one . M y un de r s t a ndi ng up on l e a vi ng the r oom wa s t wof ol d 1 ) at a pe r e c or di ng o f

the sessi on woul d b e do ne a nd pr ovi de d t o me a nd 2) we woul d b e p rov ide d w ith the resu lt s o f the test w ith in 15 m inu tes o f it s co m p leti o n an d a r ep o rt w ou l d b e sup pli ed to m e. Af t e rapp r oxi mat e l y one ho urthe t e s twa s c ompl e t e d. M y un de r s t a ndi ng i s tha tthe t e s tq ue s t i on s we r e a l t e r e d s l i g ht l y f r om tho s e ag r ee d upo n. Iti s a l s o my un derst and i ng t hat durin g th e test, A g ent El r od l am ented on sever al occasi on s that s ome t hi ng wa s wr ong wi t h the bl ood pr e s s ur e c uf f a nd was r e g ul a r l y a dj us t i ng the cuf f and hav i ng m y cl i ent mo ve h i s arm t o d i f f er ent posit i on s. One a nd o ne h a l f

h ou r s p a s s e d be t we e n the t i me myc l i e nt ’ s t es t i ng e nd e d a nd we he a r d f r om Ag e nt El r od r e g a r di ng the r e s ul t . He s t a t e d tha tthe t e s twa s i nc onc l us i ve a nd wan t e d t o r e t e s tmy c l i e nttha tda y . No specif i c reaso n wa s g i ve n f

orAg e nt E l r od ’ s c on c l us i on a nd n o s pe c i f i c p r ob l e ms we r e g i ve n i n s pi t e o f myi nq ui r i e s . At t hi s t i me i twa s ne c e s s a r y f orme t o b e i n Di c ks on Count y a nd my c l i e nt a nd Il e f tthe pr e mi s e s wi t h the un de r s t a ndi ng tha twe woul d i nve s t i g a t e the po s s i bi l i t y of sch ed u li n g a retest.

### -21-

Ii nf or med Ag e ntEl r od t ha tIwoul d p r oba bl y c ons ul t a nothe r pol y g r a ph e xa mi ne rf or a t e s ts i nc e h i s e f

f orth a d fa i l e d. He i nf

orme d bo th my s e l f

a nd myc l i e nttha tmy cl i ent wo uld justbe w ast i ng his mo ney si nce h e, A g ent El r od , w as the b estexam i ner i n t he e nt i r e St a t e a nd t ha the kn e w t ha tthe e f f ort s of othe re xa mi ne r ’ s he kn ew w o u ld b e o f

n o co n s e q u e n c e . Iw as contact ed o n tw o o ccasi on s by Stac e Th om pso n to r esched ule a t e s tin g date. Ialso co n tacted b y le tt er an d f ax b o th A gen t Elrod an d D etectiv e T h o m p so n to r equ est t he t est r esult s and a t ape r ecording of the sessi on . Specif

i cal l y , Ir equ est ed a l i s tof the e xa c tqu e s t i ons a s ke d. Iwa s i nf or med tha tno r e c or di ng wa s ma de a nd t ha t , si nc e th e t e s tw a s n o to v e r , n o r e p o r tw o u l d b e m a d e . F u r th e r , A g e n tE l r od i nform ed m e that by “Sta t e L aw ” Im ust r equ esta cop y o f the r epo r tand sub m i ta f ee of $4 0. 00, 30 da y s be f

or e the r e portwoul d b e pr ovi de d. A tthis po i n t I b e gan to f eel that Iprob ablyneed ed to hav e my cl i ent t est ed b y an ind ep en d en t ex am ine r. H av ing h ad s o m e ex p erien ce w ith s u ch testi n g, Iw as aw are t hat se veral ag encies, i nclud i ng the D avidso n C ou nty D i str i ctA t t orney ’ s of f i ce r el i ed on exam i nati on s un dert aken by C harl es Scott
. Icon t act ed M r . Sco t tand a t estw as com plet ed o n Ju ne 9, 19 98 , and Sgt
. Sp i cer w as com plet el y exo nerat ed b y the re sult s. Iw il l be m o re th an h ap p y to p rov ide a co p y o f the rep o rtu p o n it s receip t. Pr e s e nt l y , De t e c t i ve Th omps on a nd Ag e ntEl r od ha ve sc he dul e d an othe rs e s s i on f or J un e 11 , 19 98
. C on si deri ng the re sult s of the f i r stsessi on and the factthat an i nd e pe nd e ntt e s t e rh a s a c hi e ve d a c on c l us i on i n hi s t e s t i ng I wou l d pr op os e tha twe s i m ply all ow y ou t o r e vi e w t he s e t e s tr e s ul t s a nd mak e ade t e r mi na t i on a s t o y our n ex t st ep in th is m atter. Sg t . Sp i c e rha s c oope r a t ed i n everywa y i n thi s ma t t e ra nd ha s s uf f e r e d c ons t a nt e mba rr a s s men t , a nd an g ui s h b e c a us e of s e ve r a l un f

ound e d a l l e g a t i ons f

r om uni de nt i f i e d s our c e s . T he s e s our c e s w e r e des c r i be d b y De t e c t i ve Th omps on a s be i ng un r el i able a nd partof

the cr i m i nal el em ent. Theref ore, Isee no need t o f urther p rolo n g this m atter. I ti s r espectf

ull y r equ est ed t hat y ou co nclud e y ou rinv est i g at i on and that Sg t . Sp i cer be re st ored t o h i s no r m al du t i es. W he n S t a c e Th omps on, Ed Hi l a nd, Sa m Spi c e r , a nd M a l c ol m El r od g a the r e d o n Ju ne 11 , 1998 , f orthe s e c ond El r od pol y g r a ph t e s t , the pr oc e e di ngs w er e ta pe r e c or de d. T he tr a ns c r i ptof th o s e p ro c e e d in gs d is c lo s e s th e f o llo w in g: M R. THOM PSON: To da y i s the l l th o f Jun e 19 98, Det e c t i ve Th om pso n 1 59 1 inte r nal af fai r s. I ’ m here w i th E d H i l and , cou nsel f or Ser g eant Sam Spi c e r , L a Ver g ne Po l i c e De pa r t men t . P r e s e nta nd i nt e r vi e wi ng wi l l be Sp e c i a l Ag e nt M a l c ol m El r od of

the Te nne s s e e Bur e a u o f Inve s t i g a t i on.

### -22- Sa m, Iwa ntt o t a l k t o y ou a bouta c oupl e of i s s ue s a nd Iun de r s t a nd t ha ty ou mayc ons ul ty ourc ouns e l be f or e y ou’ r e a nsw er i ng the s e qu e s t i ons . You h av e b een r ead y o u r ri ghts, ha v e y o u n o t?

M R
. SP I C E R : T h at’s co rr ect. M R
. TH O M PS O N : Y ou un derst and tho se ri g hts? M R
. SP I C ER : Y es. M R
. TH O M PS O N : H aving tho se ri g hts i n m i nd w i th y ou rcou nsel present, do y ou st i l l w i sh to answ erqu est i on s?

M R
. SP I C ER : Y es. M R
. H IL A N D : W ith r egard to the - - M R
. TH O M PS O N : W e’ l l ask a bun ch o f qu est i on s. M R
. H IL A N D : B u t no t on the - - M R. EL RO D: No, No. M R
. H IL A N D : W e’re he re t o d ay f o r so m eth ing en ti relyd if f eren t. M R . T H O M P S O N : N o tn e c e s s a r i l y. M R. EL RO D: No, W e ne e d t o c l a r i f y s ome i s s ue s be f

or e we g o a ny f u rth er. M R. T HOM P S ON: W e ’ r e g oi ng t o g e td own t o s om e i s s ue s . No w, i f y ou don’ twa nty ourc l i e ntt o d o tha t , Iun de r s t a nd.

M R. H IL AN D: Idon’ tknow wha ti ti s . W e ’ r e her e f oral i e de t e c t or t est , or a po l y g r aph t est , no tf or any thing el se. M R
. TH O M P S O N : Itold y o u y esterd ay , d id In o t - - M R
. H I L A N D : Tha ty ou a nd Iwe r e g oi ng t o h a ve t o t a l k aboutthe other i ssues, and that’ s f i ne. I ’ l l t al k t o y ou , bu t no t un t i l m y cl i ent has had a chan ce -

- I ’ ve a s ke d - - i n t he f

i r s tl e t t e rtha tIs e ntt o Chi e f - - a nd I ’ m s orr y , Ike e p f or g e t t i ng hi s na me, M i c ha e l Pa tr i c k, I a s ke d f orhi m t o g i ve me al i s tof the qu e s t i ons tha the wan t e d t o a s k myc l i e nta nd I ’ d b e ha ppyt o r e s pond
.

M R
. TH O M PS O N : W el l , an i nv est i g at i on i s dy nam i c. I ti s no tst at i c. M R. HIL AN D: W e l l , i t i s , i f i n fa c t y o u ’ v e g o t s o me b o d y th a ty ou h av en ’tr ead their M ir an d a ri ghts an d th eir atto rne y h asn ’tto ld the m to h u sh , d o n ’t s a y a ny t hi ng . T ha t ’ s wh e r e we a r e r i g htn ow.

M R. T HOM P S ON: He r e ’ s wh e r e we a r e r i g ht no w. W e ’ ve g ots om e qu est i on s t o ask that g o b ack as f aras th re e y ear s f

r om t od ay , m ay be f

ou ry ear s. W e ’ ve g ots ome qu e s t i ons t o a s k, s pe c i f i c a l l y , that w i l l g o b a c k t o Nove mbe rof 1997
. T he y a l l i nvol ve a l l e g a t i ons of i mpr opri e t y a g a i ns t
- - i s i mpr opr i e t y the r i g ht wor d. Iha ve t o b e c a r e f ul of my wor ds
. Al l e g a t i ons of c ondu c ttha ta ppe a r s t o b e no t i n k eeping w i t h the st and ar ds o f l aw enf orcem ent of

f i cer s. M R
. H IL A N D : W ho ar e the o nes thatm ade these a l l eg at i on s? M R
. TH O M PS O N : M r . Jim m y B al l , B ob by D anger f i e ld , B r i dget Dan g e r f i e l d, TwanaC a rr . The r e ar e some w i t ne s s e s i n t he r e t ha thav e notma de a ny a l l e g a t i ons . Do y ou wan tac opyof thos e pe opl e t oo? M R
. H IL A N D : Su r e.

### -23- M R
. TH O M PS O N : O kay
. That’ s goi ng to take m e a w hil e t o co m pil e. A l so a J a s o n G oforth m ade an all eg at i on . Are y ou prepar ed to answ ertho se qu est i on s? M R
. H IL A N D : W e hav e no i dea w hat they ar e.

M R. THOM PSON: W hydo n ’ tw e j u s ts i ng l y g o thr oug h the m a nd y ou c a n s a y y e s orno .

M R
. H IL A N D : If

they ask a q u estio n , d o n ’tan sw er th em u n ti l Itel l y ou t o. M R
. TH O M PS O N : D i d y ou ev erarr estJ ason G oforth o n S eptem ber 4, 19 97, f

orpo s s e s s i on of

as t ol e n h a ndg un? M R . S P I C ER : Th i s i s on e of tho se kids that w as i n that deal. I re c o gn iz e th e n a m e .

M R . H ILA N D : O n w h a td a y? M R
. TH O M PS O N : Sep t em ber 4, 19 97 , at18 : 24 ho urs. M R. HI L AN D: Oka y . wa ntt o g i ve m e a l i t t l e - - y ou wan tt o d o i ton e ata t i m e? M R
. TH O M P S O N : Su re, w h y n o t.

M R. HI L AN D: Th i s i s g oi ng t o me a n we ’ r e g oi ng t o h a ve t o g et up an d g o o u tside ev ery ti m e a q u estio n is ask ed
. H o w m an y h av e y o u g o t?

M R. THOM PSON: Pr oba bl y a bout50
. M R. HI L AN D: W e l l , tha tc ome s down t o a n i nt e rr og a t i on. I ’ m g oi ng to tell m y cli en t no t t o an sw er an y . H e cam e d o w n h ere to - -

M R. THOM PSON: Oka y . I ’ l l t e l l y ou whatw e ’ l l do. W e ’ l l thr ow out al l this and w e’ l l co ncern ou r sel ves w i th the even t s su rr ou nd i ng the d ay of N ov em ber 2 5 , 1 9 9 7
. H o w ab o u t th at?

I t’ s a co n v ersatio n that y o u h ad w ith N I C B inv estig ato r, J im m y B all. O k a y? It ’ s s o m e a l l e g a t i o n s th a th e ’ s m a d e , s o m e n o t e s th a th e ’ s m a d e , e v i d e n t l y, th a t y o u ac te d in a p p ro p ria te ly in h is in v e s tigati o n .

M R
. H IL A N D : L etm e t al k to him
. Co m e on ou t si de.

(ta p e tu rn e d o ff

) ( br e a k t a ke n) M R. HI L AN D: Go a he a d a nd a s k tha tqu e s t i on. M R
. TH O M P S O N : In r ef eren ce to that, I ’m g o ing t o s a y this, M r. H il an d
. W e’re h ere to get the tru th, w ith c an d o r an d h o n esty . Ik n o w y o u ’r e h ere to r e pr e s e nty our c l i e nt . I ha ve nothi ng a g a i ns t y ou. Butwe ’ r e e nt e r i ng i nt o as i tua t i on a g a i n whe r e we ’ r e g oi ng t o be l i mi t e d t o a s ki ng que s t i ons a nd thi ng s l i ke tha t . Ithi nk t he be s tthi ng f

orus t o do i s j us tc e a s e thi s i nt e r vi e w a nd we’ l l g o a he a d a nd pr e s e nt o u rc a s e to th e gr a n d ju r y.

M R
. H IL A N D : Th at ’ s f i ne. M R. EL RO D: Tape c l os e d a t11 : 04. The s t a t e men t s tha tPi c ka r d a dmi t t e dl y mad e t o the Dai l y News Journa l of Jun e 17 , 19 98 a nd t o the R utherf

ord C ou r i eri n the art i cl e of Ju ne 2 5, 1 99 8 stand in st ark co ntr astt o the truth as e vi de nc e d b y the tr a ns c r i ptof the pr oc e e di ng s on Jun e 11 , 19 98.

### -24-

The Jun e 25 , 19 98 Rut he r f or d Couri e ra r t i c l e pr ovi de d: Fo r m erL aV er g ne Po l i ce D epart m ent ( L PD ) Sg t . Sam Sp i cerw as dis m i ssed f r om t he f or c e June 11 be c a us e he r e f us e d t o a ns wers e ve n s pe c i f i c qu e s t i ons f

r om a Te nne s s e e Bur e a u o f

Inve s t i g a t i ons ( TBI ) po l y g r a ph t e s t , acco r di ng t o L a Ver g ne Ci t y Admi ni s tr a t orDon P i c ka r d. S p i cer , a 15

- y ear veter an of the f orce, had been un der susp i ci on o f w ro n gd o ings b y d ep artm en t and cit y o f f icials prio r to h is d is m is s a l a n d h is r ef u sal to c o o p erate w ith the M ay 2 2 test- - an d thu s th e inv estig ation - - g av e the cit y am p le r e a s on f ordi s mi s s a l , Pi c ka r d s a i d.
“ H i s a t t o r n e y p ic k e d o u t se v e n q u e s tio n s th a t th e y d id n ’t w a n t as k e d ,” Pi c ka r d s a i d. “ Thi s s ortof thi ng l e t s the pa pe r s a nd TV s a y t ha the a ns wer e d a l l of t he q uesti on s asked and that i t w as i nclusive. The p oly g r aph t estdidn ’ tt el l w hether [ he ] t ol d the truth o rl i e d. B ut o f t he thr e e TBIr e vi e wer s , on e of the thr e e s a i d i twa s ob vi ous t hat (Sp icer) h ad n o t t o ld th e tru th on so m e o f the q u estio n s an sw ered
. Th e o the r tw o said it w a s in c lu s iv e .”

. . . .

“ ( Spi c e r ’ s ) basic respo ns e wa s tha ti twa s a n i nt e rr og a t i on, ” Pi c ka r d s a i d. “H e w anted us to w r i t e do w n al l o f the qu est i on s an d he and his l aw y erw ou l d revi ew th e m .” P ick ard s aid th at ref u sin g to an sw er a n y o f

th e q u estio n s w as “grou n d s f o r h is te rm in a tio n .” “H e r ef used t o co op er at e w i th the l aston e, ” Pic kard sai d, no t i ng that r e que s t i ng the quest i on s i n a dva nc e c ons t i tut e d al a c k o f c oope r a t i on i n a ns weri ng t he p r epared qu est i on s. I t i s o b v i o u s f

r o m a c u r s o r y r e a d i n g o f th e tr a n s c r i p t o f th e J u n e 1 1 , 1 9 9 8 s e c o nd El r od pol y g r a ph t e s ttha tthe s t a t e men t s Pi c ka r d made ar e fa l s e . M r . Spi c e rand hi s a t t or ne y a rr i ve d f orthe J u n e 1 1 , 1 9 9 8 p o ly gr ap h tes t u n aw are o f a n y c laim b y M r. Elro d that S p icer ha d tried to d elibe rately s a bot a g e the M a y 22 , 19 98 pol y g r a ph t e s t . M r . Sp i c e ra nd hi s a t t or ne y c a me pr e pa r e d t o a ns werthe sam e qu est i on s that had b een asked by M r . Elrod o n the M ay 22 t est . Itw as M r . Th om pso n, ov er t he i nit i al obj ect i on s of M r . Elr od , w ho com plet el y chan g ed the g r ou nd rules f or the p oly g r aph t est a nd wi s he d i ns t e a d t o u nde r t a ke a n i nve s t i g a t or y i nqui r y c ons i s t i ng of s ome f i f t y qu e s t i ons c ompl e t e l y un r e l a t e d t o the s ubj e c tof t he pol y g r a ph t e s t . W he n M r . Th omps on t ook thi s a ppr oa c h, M r. H il a n d o bje c te d that h e k n ew n o thin g ab o u t th e q u estio n s th at M r. Th o m p so n w as se ek ing to a s k. W he n Hi l a nd s oug htt o conf e rwi th h i s c l i e nt , pri ort o h i s a ns weri ng the f i r s tTh omps on q u estio n w h ich d e a lt w it h m atters t o tall y u n related to th e su bject of the p o ly gr ap h test, itw as M r. Tho mps on who a brupt l y t e r mi na t e d the pr oc e e di ng s bya nnou nci ng “bu twe ’ r e e nt e r i ng i nt o a s i t ua t i on a g a i n whe r e we’ r e l ooki ng t o be l i mi t e d t o a s ki ng que s t i ons a nd thi ng s l i ke tha t . Ithi nk the be s tthi ng f

orus t o d o i s just cease t hi s i nt e r vi e w a nd we’ l l g o a he a d a nd pr e s e ntou rc a s e t o the g r and j ury . ” M r . Sp i cerw as neve r s w o rn , n e ver a t t ached t o the po l y g r aph m achine, nev er

### -25-

ad m inistered an y so rt o f test, an d the w h o le pro cee d ing w as term ina ted n o t by M r. Sp icer, b u t by M r. Tho mps on. Tha tM r . Pi c ka r d k ne w e xa c t l y wha t was ha ppe ni ng i s c l e a r f r om the r e c or d. T he tr a ns c r i pt o f the J u n e 1 1 , 1 9 9 8 po ly gr ap h test sh o w s th at w h en M r. Th o m p so n i n sisted o n ask ing h is f if ty que s t i ons a nd, i n f

a c t , a s ke d the on l y qu e s t i on tha twa s e ve ra s ke d o f M r . Sp i c e r , a t t or ne y a nd c l i e nt Hi l a nd a nd Spi c e rr e t i r e d f r om t he r oom t o t a l k ab outt he que s t i on be f or e ans weri ng . Att hi s po i nt th e tap e d is c lo s e s “(ta p e tu rn e d o f f ) (b re a k tak e n ).” A s to w h at ha p p en ed in th e p o ly gr ap h r o o m d u ri n g this b reak w h en H il an d an d S p icer w ere ab sen t, Sp icer t estif

ies: Q. Al l r i g ht
. How ma nyqu e s t i ons di d M r . Th omps on g e tt o a s k y ou? A
. O ne. Q
. A n d w h at w as th at qu estio n , sir ? A. I t wa s a b o u t a mo t o r c y c l e . I ’ l l h a v e t o r e a d th i s . I b e l i e v e t he q u e s t i o n w a s s o m e t h i n g t o th e e ff e c to f c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a tI h a d w i th J i m m y B a l l
. In m y m i nd i tw as concerning the m otorcy cl e. Q. Di d y ou g o o ut s i de a nd t a l k t o M r . Hi l a nd? A
. Y es, sir
. Q. The t a pe - - t he tr a ns c r i ptr e f l e c t s t a pe tur ne d o f

f, br e a k t a ke n. Do y ou r ecal l ho w l on g that br eak w as? A. I twa s l e s s tha n f i ve mi nut e s be c a us e I ha d no pr obl e m a ns weri ng the que s t i on. Q
. W h e n yo u c a m e b a c k in , w h a td i d M r . H i l a n d s a y? A
. W hen w e cam e b ack i n w e w al ked back i nto -
- Ibeli eve w e w al ked o u tside the C it y H all. Ib eliev e w e w alk ed b ack in f ron t of the co u n ter tha t w as in f r ontof Dway ne Hi c ks ’ s of

f i c e whe r e the po l y g r a ph e xa mi na t i on w as b e i ng g i ve n. W e we ntt o wa l k i n, the do orwa s c l os e d - - Ido n’ tknow i f i tw a s c ompl e t e l y c l os e d, loc k ed , b u t y o u co u ldn ’tsee an y thin g ins ide the o f f ice. A n d w e h ad to w ait p rob ab ly 10 , m ay be 1 5 m i nu t es, m ay be 1 2 m i nu t es, I ’ m no tsure, f or us t o return in. An d w hen the d o o r o p en ed u p - - Q
. W hy did y ou hav e t o w ai t10 or 12 m i nu t es? A. W e l l , the do orwa s c l os e d. Q. Di d y ou knoc k t o g o i n? A. No, s i r . Ibe l i e ve we wa i t e d u nt i l the do orwa s op e ne d. Q. Al l r i g ht
. W he n y ou wentbac k i n di d M r . Hi l a nd a s k, g o a he a d a nd a s k the qu e s t i on? A. Af

t e rt he doorop e ne d a nd M r . Pi c ka r d a nd Dw a y ne Hi c ks c a me out of the of f i c e , M r . Hi l a nd a nd my s e l f we nti ns i de , a nd M r . Hi l a nd s a y s , g o a he a d a nd a s k y ourqu e s t i on. Q
. W a s M r. P ic k a rd an d M r. H ic k s in th e ro o m w h e n M r. H ila n d sa id , g o a he a d a nd a s k tha tqu e s t i on? A
. Id o n o t believ e the y w ere, n o , sir
.

### -26- Q. W ha t we r e M r . Hi c k s a n d M r . - - d o y o u k n o w wh a t M r . Hi c ks a nd M r . Pickar d w er e do i ng i n the r oo m b ehind the cl osed d oo r s for this 10 or 12 m i nu t es th a t y o u w e re w a itin g? A. Jus ts pe c ul a t i on. Q
. C an’tspeculat e. A. Idi dn’ tthi nk s o. Q
. A ll ri ght. A f

ter M r. H il an d said go ah ead an d ask tha t qu estio n , is M r. T h o m p so n ’s r esp o n se ac cu rate on p age 1 0 o f the tran scrip t? A. Tha t ’ s wha the s a i d. Q
. W h at w as y o u r reactio n w h en h e said “Ithin k the b est thin g f o r u s to do i s j us tce a s e t hi s i nt e r vi e w a nd we’ l l g o ah e a d an d pr e s e ntourca s e t o the g r a nd j ur y ?” A
. Id o n ’tk n o w if Isigh e d - - I s a id so m eth ing, b u t Ijus t - - Ico u ldn ’t b eliev e it
. Ico u ld n o t believ e it
. Th e t est i m on y of M r . Elr od r el at i ve t o the Ju ne 11, 19 98 even t s cou l d h ar dly be charac t er i zed as in co n sisten t w ith the testim o n y o f Sp icer. Q
. M r. Pick ard there w h en y o u ter m ina ted it ? A. M r . P i c kar d wa s n oti n the r oo m. Q
. D id M r. Pick ard co m e in th e roo m af ter y o u ter m ina ted it ? A
. C ou l d h ave. Q
. M r . Pickar d in the room pri or t o y ou t er m i nati ng i tatany t i m e? A. M r . Pi c ka r d mi g htha ve be e n i n a nd outof the r oom whe n St ace Th om pso n an d Iw er e sett i ng t hings up or t aking things do w n. M r . Pickar d w as never i n the po l y g r a ph

- - or t he of f i c e whe r e Iwa s do i ng the po l y g r a ph dur i ng a nypa r tof the interv iew w ith M r. Sp icer. Q
. W h y w as th e cityad m inistrato r inv o lve d w ith this p o ly gr ap h test? A
. B ecause there w as no chief of po l i ce. W he n the tr i a l c ourtf

ound tha tM r . Pi c ka r d k ne w wha tha d o c c urr e d a tthe Ju ne 11 , 19 98 p o ly gr ap h test b eca u se “h e w as th ere,” th e reco rd leav es littl e d o u b t th at su ch f ind ing w as co rr ect. He was the r e i n the po l y g r aph roo m in t he a bs e nc e of Hi l a nd a nd Spi c e ra nd he wa s the r e i n the pr e s e nc e of

hi s t wo s our c e s of

i nf or mati on on t he po l y g r a ph t e s t , Th omps on a nd El r od. Iti s a tthe t i me of t hi s c onf

e r e nc e t ha t Tho mps on mad e hi s de c i s i on t o t e r mi na t e the t e s twi thoute i the rEl r od o r T h o m p so n p u tt ing an y p o ly gr ap h q u estio n s to Sa m Sp icer. C. Di s pos i t i on of

the i s s ue of

de fa mati on S am Sp icer w as a 1 5 y ear v eteran o f the L aV erg n e P o li ce D ep artm en t. W h il e h is reco rd is un blem i shed w i t h p asttr ansgr essio n s , it is corr ectt o n ote that the re cord i n this case discl oses a see m inglyq u estio n ab le relation sh ip b etw een S p icer a n d th e D ain ger f ield fam il y , ap p aren tl y d eep ly i nv olved i n the drug tr ade in the C i t y of L aV er g ne. M r . G oforth ap pears l i kew i se t o b e a r ather que s t i ona bl e a c qua i nt a nc e . S uc h r e l a t i ons hi ps , ho wev e r , a r e no tne c e s s a r i l y ind i cat i ve o f un -Su ch w as th e fat e met ed ou tt o Cha r l es D ar n ay a n d by c l an des t i n e s u bs t i t u t i on v i s i t ed u pon Sy dn ey Car t on 3 in C h a rle s D ic k e n s’ “A T a le o f T w o C iti e s.” 

### -27- pr of e s s i ona l be ha vi orbyM r . Sp i cer . Gi ve n the r e l a t i ve l y s mal l c ommuni t y i nvol ve d i n the j ur i s di c t i on of

the L a Ver g ne Po l i c e De pa r t men ta nd the ne c e s s a r y f a mi l i a r i t y wi t h al l ma nne rof person s i n the com m un ity , th e acti on s of M r . Sp i cerar e equ al l y com pati ble with co rr ectpo l i ce beh avior. Rep r esentati ves o f the L aV ergn e Po l i ce Dep ar t m ent l ed b y M r . Pickar d co nv er t ed su sp icion , ru m o r, inn u en d o , an d f alseh o o d into a v eh icle f o r ruin ing the r ep u tati o n o f M r. Sp icer. The l a w i n thi s c ountr y r e qui r e s mor e tha n s us pi c i on t o e xpos e apu bl i c f i g ur e t o ri di cul e a nd c ont e mpt . Unde rou rs y s t e m of l a w a pe r s on c a nnotbe c a r t e d a wayt o the f i g ur a t i ve g ui l l ot i ne on t he d enu nciat i on s of

f el l ow ci t i zens. 3 I n d ef en se M r. Pick ard claim s th at he d id n o t kn o w an y thin g b u t accep ted u n q u estio n ingly wha t wa s t o l d t o h i m b y T h o mp s o n a n d E l r o d
. T h e r e c o r d s h o ws o th e r wi s e . Att he Jun e 11 pol y g r a ph t e s t , whe n M r . Th omps on c onf r ont e d Hi l a nd a nd Spi c e r wi th h i s f i f t y pr opos e d q ue s t i ons i n h i s s wee pi ng i nve s t i g at i on , and i tbe c a me a ppa r e nttha tM r . Hi l a nd a nd M r . Sp i c e rwoul d h a ve t o r et i r e f

r om the exam i nati on roo m o n each qu est i on in order t o con f erp r i or to Sp i cer ’ s answ er s, the p ar ti c ip a n ts “too k a b reak ” in th e p roc eed ings. D u ri n g this b reak , an d in th e ab sen ce o f M r. H i l and and M r . Sp i cer , M r . Pickar d en t er ed the po l y g r aph t est r oo m and con f err ed f or t en to f

i f t een mi nut e s wi t h Tho mps on a nd El r od. At the c onc l us i on of thi s mee t i ng , M r . Pi c ka r d d epart ed and S p icer an d H il an d r etu rne d to th e p o ly gr ap h test roo m . I t w as at this t im e tha t T h o m p so n , n o t Sp icer, t e r mi na t e d t he t e s tw i t houtM r . Sp i c e re ve rha vi ng be e n s wor n, e ve n h a vi ng be e n h ooke d u p t o the pol y g r a ph mac hi ne ore ve rha vi ng r e f us e d t o a ns werqu e s t i ons . Si x da y s l a t e r , M r . Pi c ka r d ma de the publ i c pr onou nc e men t s t o the ne ws med i a t hatf or m the ba s e s of

thi s a c t i on whe n h e ha d t o k now th a t th e sta te m e n ts w e re f a ls e . Di s s e nt i ng i n St
. Amantv . Th omps on , 3 9 0 U
. S
. 7 2 7 , 8 8 S.C t. 1 3 2 3 , 2 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 2 6 2 ( 1 9 6 8 ), M r . Jus t i c e Fo r t a s ob s e r ve d:

T h e F ir st A m en d m e n t is n o t so f rag il e tha t i t r eq u ir es u s to im m u n ize this ki nd of r e c kl e s s , de s truc t i ve i nva s i on of the l i f e , e ve n of publ i c of

f i c i a l s , he e dl e s s of t he i ri nt e r e s t s a nd s e ns i t i vi t i e s . T he Fir s tAmen dme nti s no tas he l t e rf orthe c ha r a c t e ra s s a s s i na t or , whe t he rhi s a c t i on i s he e dl e s s a nd r e c kl e s s orde l i be r a t e . T he F ir st A m en d m en t do es n o t r eq u ir e tha t w e li cen se sh o tg u n attack s o n p u b li c o f f icials i n v i r t ua l l y un l i mi t e d o pe n s e a s on. Th e oc c upa t i on of pu bl i c of

f i c e hol de rdo e s no t f o rf eit o n e’s m em b ersh ip in th e h u m an rac e. T h e p u b li c o f f icial sh o u ld b e su bject t o s e v e r e s c ru t i n y a n d to fre e a n d o p e n c r i t i c i s m . B u tif h e is n e e d l e s s l y, h e e d l e s s l y, fa ls e ly a c c u s e d o f c rim e , h e s h o u ld h a v e a rem e d y in law
. New York Tim es doe s no t p re c lu d e th is m in im a l sta n d a rd o f civ iliz e d liv in g. 3 9 0 U
. S
. at 73 4 , 8 8 S.C t. at 13 2 7 , 1 0 L
. E d
. 2 d at 26 9 ( 1 9 6 8 ). W hil e po l i ce of

f i cer s ar e “pu bli c f

i g ures” w i thin the New York Tim es rule th ey stil l re ta in the irstatus as A m erican cit izen s. Th e cas e at ba r re fle c ts o f f en siv e co n d u ct by Pick ard f ar m o re

### -28-

e g r e g i ous t ha n t ha twhi c h o c c urr e d i n D rag hett i v. C hm i el ew ski , 6 2 6 N
. E
. 2 d 8 6 2 ( M a s s . 1 9 9 4 )
. In t hat ca se po l i ce of

f i cerD r ag hett i w as a part
- t i m e t eacher atthe M a s s a c h u s et t s C r i m i nal Ju st i ce C en ter. H e su f

f ered a b a c k i nju ryw h il e o n d u tyan d h is p h y sician r eco m m en d ed f o u r d ay s rest. U n d er de p artm en t p o li cy p o li ce o f f icers w ere f

o rbid d en to w o rk w h il e the y w ere o n the in jury r o ster. D rag h etti p roc u red a su b stitu te t eac h er bu t bec au se th e teach er w a s n o t e x p erien ced , D rag h etti a t t e nde d the c l a s s i n c a s e the s ubs t i t ut e s houl d n e e d h e l p. He di d n ots ubmi tapa y men tvo uc he rf or h i s a p p e a r a n c e a tth e c l a s s a n d th e s u b s t i tu t e te a c h e rw a s p a i d fo rt e a c h i n g a tt h e A c a d e m y t h a td a y.
A n inte r nal i nv est i g at i on r esult ed in a r ef er ence of the case to the distr i ctatt orney f or cri m i nal i nv est i g at i on . Sai d the Su prem e Ju dici al C ou r tof M assachu set t s: I n f a c t , the i nt e r na l i nve s t i g a t i on r e ve a l e d t ha tt he r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntc a us e t o wa rr a nt a crim ina l in v estig ation
. T h e S ep tem b er 2 6 a rt icle rep o rt ed , “ C h m ielew sk i said th ere wa s e vi de nc e tha tDr a g he t t i
. . . i nt e nd e d t o c ol l e c tp a y f ort e a c hi ng a tthe Ac a de my w h il e o n d u ty . ” C o ll ectin g p ay f o r teach ing w h il e o n d u ty is a cri m e. C h m ielew sk i’ s st at em ents r eason a b ly c ou l d b e un derst oo d to m ean thatthere w as evi den ce that Dr a g he t t i i nt e nde d t o co mmi ta c r i me. The r e w a s no s uc h e vi de nc e . Imput a t i on of a c rim e is d e fa m a to ry p e r s e . Ston e v. Essex C on t y New spapers, I

nc. , 36 7 M a s s . 84 , 853, 3 30 N
. E.2 d 1 61 ( 1975 )
. T hus , Chmi e l e wsk i ’ s s t a t e men t s we r e s us c e pt i bl e of a d e fa m a to ry m e a n in g. D rag hett i v. C hm i el ew ski , 6 2 6 N
. E
. 2 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 6 ( M ass . 1 9 9 4 ). T h e co u rt u p h e ld th e $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 v e rd ic t in f a v o r o f D ra gh e tti f

o r d e fa m a tio n . I n Pos adas v . Ci t

y of Re no , 85 1 P
. 2d 438 ( Nev
. 19 93) , the c ourthe l d: Po sadas con t end s B r adsh aw defam ed him w hen B r adsh aw accused Po sadas i n a press r el eas e o f

h a v i ng “l i ed u nd eroath. ” A l tho ugh Po sadas adm i t t ed, un der oath, that h e h ad l i ed to t w o p oli ce of f i ces duri ng an investi g at i on , he nev eradm i t t ed t o l y i ng unde r oa t h. W e f i nd t he wor di ng of

the pr e s s r e l e a s e t o b e a mbi g uous a nd s u s c e p ti b le to th e f

a ls e im p re s s io n th a t P o s a d a s h a d p e rj u re d h im s e lf. 851 P. 2d a t44 2. T h e b eh av ior o f

M r. Pick ard is al l th e m o re egr egiou s b eca u se Se rg ean t S p icer w as an at- w il l em ploy ee of

the C i t y of

L aV er g ne. A l l Pickar d ev erhad t o d o w as f i r e Sp i ceri n the sam e man ner t ha the f i r e d L i e ut e na ntBob W ol f e . He c hos e a nothe r unf ortuna t e a nd i l l

- a dvi s e d c our s e . Cl e a ra nd con vincing evidence est abli shes t hat M r . P i ckard m ade the po stJ un e 1 1, 19 98 st at em ents t o the press k n o w ing f

u ll w ell tha t su ch statem en ts w ere false. T h e jud gm en t of the tri al co u rtin relati o n to de fa mati on wi l l be a f

f i r med
. I I I
. T h e M aliciou s P ros ecu ti o n C laim

### -29-

A
. Th e elem en ts The e l e men t s of

ama l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on a r e we l l s e t t l e d: Forapl ai nt i f

f t o b e s uc c e s s f

ul i n ama l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on c a s e g r owi ng ou t of an arr estf

or an al l eg ed cr i m i nal ac t , i tm ust be al l eg ed an d pr ov ed that: a cri m i nal pr oc e e di ng ha s be e n i ns t i t ut e d by the de f e nda nt a g a i ns t the pl a i nt i f f ; s uc h p r oc e e di ng t e r mi na t e d i n f

a vorof a c c us e d; the r e wa s a n abs e nc e of pr oba bl e cau se f

orthe pr oc e e di ng ; a nd, the r e wa s ma l i c e orapri mary pu rpos e othe rthan thatof bri ng i ng d e f e n d a n t to ju s tic e . F.W. Woo l w orth C o. v. C on no rs , 142 Te nn. 678, 222 S. W
. 10 53 (19 2 0 ); Pha r i s v . La mbert , 33 Te nn. 22 8 ( 1853 ) ; Re s t a t e men tof To r t s , W r ong f

ul Pr os e c ut i on, Se c . 65 3; Pr os s e rL a w of To r t s , 4th e d. , Se c t . 11 9. D ef inition s o f

p rob a b le c au se, ho w ev er dif f eren tl y ex p resse d , all a gre e in th ese tw o esse n ti als: ( 1 ) T h e p ros ecu tor m u st i n g o o d f aith ha ve ho ne s t l y be l i e ve d the a c c us e d wa s g ui l t y of the c r i me c ha r g e d; a nd ( 2) hi s be l i e f

mus tha ve be e n r e a s ona bl e - - ba s e d o n f a c t s a nd circu m stan ces su f

f icien t t o lead an o rdin aril y p rud en t perso n to be l i e ve the a c c us e d wa s g ui l t y of the c r i me c ha r g e d. T he pr os e c ut or m u st h av e m ad e the inv estig ation an o rdin aril y p rud en t perso n w o u ld h a v e m a d e in th e c irc u m s ta n c e s . T h o m p so n v. S ch u lz , 34 Te nn. App. 4 8 8 , 2 4 0 S.W
. 2 d 2 5 2 ( 1 9 4 0 ). Lan de rs v. K r oge rCo. , 5 3 9 S
. W
. 2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 1 -13 2 (Te n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 7 6 ); s e e al s o Ke rne y V. Ae tna Cas
. & Su r . Co. , 6 4 8 S.W
. 2 d 2 4 7 ( T en n . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ). Th e entry of

a nol l e pros e qui whe the rorno tthe de f e nda nt i n the c r i mi na l c a s e ha s be e n p ut in jeo p ard y is a su f

f icien t term ina ti o n in f

av o r o f the d ef

en d an t in th e crim ina l p ros ecu ti o n to co m p ly w ith the ru le i n m aliciou s p ros ecu ti o n case s th at th e u n d erly ing su itm u st h av e b een term ina ted in fa v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n t. Sch ei bler v
. Stei nb urg , 1 2 9 Te n n . 6 1 4 ( 1 9 1 4 ); s e e al s o Chr i s t i an v . La pi dus , 8 3 3 S.W
. 2 d 7 1 ( T en n . 1 9 9 2 ). Si nc e i ti s un di sput e d i n thi s c a s e tha tTh omps on a tthe i ns t i g a t i on of Pi c ka r d wa s the prosecu t or i n the N ov em ber 4, 19 98 f ou rco un tind i ct m ent o f Sam Sp i cerand that Att orney G eneral W i l l i am W hit esel l t oo k a nol l e pros e qui of the c a s e on M a y 5, 19 99, a l be i tover the obj e c t i ons of Pi c ka r d, Th omps on a nd Pol i c e C hi e f M orr i s , a nd tha ts uc h nol l e pros e qui w as the b asi s of the tri al cou r torderof

Ju ne 2 , 19 99 , dismissi ng the c ase; w e ar e l ef tt o co nsider on l y the ele m ents of m al i ce and l ack o f

prob able c ause. M a l i c e ma y be i nf

e rr e d f r om l a c k o f

pr oba bl e c a us e bu tthe r e ve r s e i s not the c a s e . L a c k o f p ro b a b le c a u s e c a n n o t b e in f e rre d f ro m th e ex is te n c e o f

m a lic e . S e e S m ith v. Ha r tfo rdM u t. In s . C o ., 7 5 1 S.W
. 2 d 1 4 0 , 1 4 3 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 7 ); see a lso Na sh vill e Un ion S toc kya rd s, Inc
. v. G rissim , 1 3 Te n n . A p p . 1 1 5 ( 1 9 3 0 ); P eop le’s Pr o tectiv e L if e Ins
. C o . v. New h o

ff , 40 7 S
. W
. 2d 190, 19 9 (T e n n .C t.A p p . 1 9 6 6 ). T h u s it is th a t p ro b a b le ca u s e is th e lin c h p in o f m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n . Kerney v . Ae tna Cas
. & Su r e t

y Co. , 6 4 8 S
. W
. 2 d at 25 1 ; C arter v. Ba kers’ Fo od ri gh tStore , 78 7 S
. W
. 2d 4,

### -30-

6 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 19 89)
. E ve n i f ma l i c e be s hown b y the pr oof, a n a c t i on f orma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on c a n n o t b e su s ta in e d if

p ro b a b le ca u s e f

o r p ro s e c u tio n ex is ts . F.W. Woo l w orth C o. v. C on no rs , 14 2 T en n . 6 7 8 ( 1 9 1 9 ). G eneral l y as t o m al i ce and p r ob able c ause Ten nessee l aw prov i des:

To susta in an act i on f

or a m al i ci ou s prosecuti on , there m ust noton l y be ma l i c e , bu tawa ntof pr oba bl e c a us e . In t he abse nc e of e i t he rof the s e r e qui s i t e s , the a c t i on fa l l s t o the g r ound
. He nc e the wan tof pr obable cau se f

orapr os e c ut i on i s the t e s tof thi s a c t i on. Tho ug h mal i c e e xi s t s , i f i n the e s t i mati on of a r a t i on al a nd di s pa s s i ona t e mi nd th e r e b e pr oba bl e c a us e f orpr os e c ut i on, the a c t i on c a n n o t b e su s ta in e d
.

. . . . I n th e c a s e o f Rau l s t on v . Jac ks on , 1 Sn eed , 1 2 8 , the co u rtsaid : The l a w on thi s po i nti s , a nd s houl d h a ve be e n s o c ha r g e d b y t he judge, t hat i f t he jur y f ou nd f r om the p r oo f

that the d ef

end ant, at the ti m e h e ins ti tuted the p ros ecu ti o n , acted u p o n su ch a state of facts kn ow n t o him , o rd er i ved f r om rel i able inf

orm at i on , as w ou l d ind uce a beli ef i n the m i nd of

a prud ent, discr eet m an that the cr i m e had been c ommi t t e d and bythe pe r s on he wa s a boutt o p r os e c ut e , he wa s no t l i able. The qu e s t i on i s not whe the r the de f e nda nt i s r e a l l y g ui l t y , bu t was the r e g ood a nd r e a s ona bl e g r ound s fort he pr os e c ut ort o b e l i e ve h e w a s . . . . I n stead o f

r eq u ir ing d ir ect ev ide n ce o f th e fact o f

the crim e, it mayc e r t a i nl y of

t e n h a ppe n tha tno cri me wa s i n fa c tc ommi t t e d, a nd y e tthe pr os e c ut orj us t i f i a bl e , be c a us e of

the e xi s t e nc e of

pr obabl e or r e a s ona bl e g r ound s t o b e l i e ve t he cr i mi na l ac thad bee n done , and by t he a c c us e d. If

me n we r e no ta l l owe d t o a c tup on s uc h g r ounds, crim es w o u ld o f

ten g o u n p u n ish ed f

o r w an t of

p ros ec u tors. T h is a c t i on i s onl y i nt e nde d t o ap pl y t o c a s e s whe r e ac r i mi na l a c c us a t i on i s m ade ag ai nst an inno cent man throu g h m al i ce, and i n the absen ce of e ve n af a i ra nd r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i t y of i t s truth. C on no rs , 1 4 2 T e n n . a t 6 8 2 -8 3 , q u o tin g Kel t on v . Be v i ns , 3 Te nn. 90 ( 1812 ) , a nd Rau l s t on v . Jac ks on , 3 3 Te n n . 1 2 8 ( 1 8 5 3 ). Pr i orTe nne s s e e c a s e s ho l di ng that the e xi s t e nc e of pr oba bl e c a us e orthe l a c k the r e of p re s e n te d a m ix e d q u e s tio n o f law an d f

a c t, Cohe n v . Cook , 22 4 T e nn. 72 9, 46 2 S
. W
. 2d 499 ( Te nn. 1 9 7 0 ); L ou i s v . Wi l l i ams , 6 1 8 S.W
. 2 d 2 9 9 ( T en n . 1 9 8 1 ); Log an v . Koons Bi g K Corp
. , 67 6 S
. W
. 2d

### -31-

948 ( Te nn. 19 84) , we r e ov e rrul e d b y the s upr e me c ourti n Rob e r ts v . Fe dera l Exp ress Cor p. , 84 2 S
. W
. 2 d 2 4 6 ( T en n . 1 9 9 2 ). U n d er R o b erts pr oba bl e c a us e pr e s e nt s a n i s s ue of f a c tt o b e de c i de d b y t he tr i e rof

f a c t . T he c ourti n R o b erts p rov ide s a sim il ar d esc ri p ti o n o f the n ece ssa rylack o f

p rob ab le cau se: A ma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on i s on e br oug hti n the a bs e nc e of pr oba bl e c a us e , a nd wi t h ma l i c e . T he s e t wo e l e men t s a r e di st i nc t . W he r e a s ma l i c e c onc e r ns the subj ect i ve m ental stat e o f the prosecu t or, ap prai sal of prob able c ause necessit at es an obj e c t i ve de t e r mi na t i on of t he r e a s ona bl e ne s s of the pr os e c ut or ’ s c ondu c ti n l i g htof th e su rro u n d in g f

a c ts an d circ u m s ta n c e s . A cco rdS h eld o n App el C o . v . A lbe rt & O l i ker , 47 C al
. 3d 86 3, 76 5 P
. 2d 4 98 , 5 06 , 2 54 C al
. R ptr . 33 6, 34 4-45 ( 19 89 ) ; D ob bs, Beli ef an d D ou bt i n M ali ci ou s Prosecu t i on an d L i bel , 21 Ar i z . L
. R e v. 60 7 ( 1979 ) (r ejectin g R estatem en t ( S eco n d ) o f Tro ts § 6 6 2 co m m en t c ( 1 9 7 7 ))
. Pr ope r l y def

i ne d, pr oba bl e ca us e r e qui r e s onl y t he e xi s t e nc e of s uc h f a c t s a nd circu m stan ces su f

f icien t t o ex cite i n a reaso n ab le m ind the b elief tha t the acc u sed is guiltyo f th e crim e ch arg ed
. W h il e a m ind “b e clo u d ed b y a p rejud ice, p ass ion , h ate and m al i ce” i s no t“r eason able, ” s e e P o s t e rv . A n d r e ws , 18 3 T e nn. 54 4, 55 4, 19 4 S.W
. 2d 33 7, 34 1 (19 46 ) , the q uesti on w hether a par t i cularprosecutor i s so m oti vated g oe s on l y t o the e l e men tof mal i c e . Pr oba bl e c a us e i s t o b e de t e r mi ne d s ol e l y f r om an o bject i ve ex am i nati on of the su rr ou nd i ng fact s and ci r cum st ances. R o b erts , 8 4 2 S .W .2 d , 2 4 6 , 2 4 8
. A dd r essi ng no w the li nch pin o f prob able c ause un der the Rob erts’ d et er m i nati on that “p rob ab le cau se is to b e d eterm ine d so lelyf rom an o bjective ex am ina ti o n o f the s u rr o u n d ing facts a nd c i r c ums t a nc e s . ” 8 42 S. W
. 2d a t248, t wo e l e men t s po s s i bl y a f f e c t i ng pr oba bl e c a us e , a dvi c e of c ouns e l a nd t he e f

f e c tof a n i ndi c t men tbyg r a nd j ur y , mus tbe c ons i de r e d. A dv i ce of

cou nsel i s an af

f i r m at i ve d ef

ense: Th om pso n rel i es on adv i ce of co un sel as a d ef

ense. To m ake ou tthis def ense, the b u rd e n w a s o n h im to p rov e tha t he h o n estly so u ght su ch ad v ice, tha t he f u ll y di s c l os e d t o hi s c ou ns e l a l l t he ma t e r i a l fa c t s he kn e w a nd a l l h e c ou l d ha ve k no wn by r eason able di l i g ence, that hi s cou nsel a dv i sed the prosecuti on , and that he act ed in go o d f

a ith u p o n s u c h a d v ic e . Na sh vill e Un ion S toc kya rd s, Inc
. v. G rissim , 13 T en n . A p p . 1 1 5 , 1 2 5 ; Ci t i z e ns S av . & L oa n Cor p. v . B r own , 16 Ten n. App. 13 6, 13 8- 1 4 0 , 6 5 S.W
. 2 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 2 ; Coope rv . Fl e mm i ng , 11 4 T e nn. , 40 , 84 S. W
. 801, 68 L
. R
. A
. 8 4 9 ; C i t

y v. M i l l er , 1 Te nn. App
. 1, 4 ; W ilm er v. Ro sen , 10 2 W
. Va. 8, 13 5 S .E . 2 2 5 , 4 9 A .L .R
. 2 6 1 ; N o te , 1 1 A n n .C a s . 9 5 4 , 9 5 5 ; 3 8 C .J . 4 7 9 , 4 8 0 , 5 4 C .J .S ., M a l i c i ous Pr os e c ut i on, § 84. T h o m p so n v. S ch u lz , 2 4 0 S.W
. 2 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 4 9 ).

### -32-

The di s tr i c tatt or ne y g e ne r a l i s c ouns e l whos e a dvi c e c a n c ons t i tut e ade f e ns e t o ama l i c i ous p ro s e c u tio n ac tio n . Coope rv . Fl e mm i ng , 1 1 4 T en n . 4 0 , 8 4 S
. W
. 8 0 1 , 6 8 L. R
. A
. 8 4 9 ( 1 9 0 4 ). Th is af f i r m at i ve d ef

ense i s dep end ent upo n f ull , corr ectan d ho nest d i scl osu r e to cou nsel o f al l m at er i al facts w ith in th e k n o w led ge of the p ros ecu to r o r th a t c o u ld h av e b een asce rt ain ed b y r eas o n ab le di l i g e nc e . T hi s Courtha s he l d:

Butthe pa r t y mus ts t a t e no tonl y al l m a t e r i a l fa c t s w i thi n hi s knowl e dg e bu t a l l f a c t s whi c h h e ha d r e a s ona bl e g r ound t o be l i e ve e xi s t e d a t the t i me of ma ki ng the statem en t, o r all m aterial fa c ts w h ich h e co u ld h av e asc ertaine d b y r eas o n ab le d il ig en ce. 3 8 C
. J
. , 4 3 3 -4; 1 C o o ley o n To rt s, 3 Ed
. , 3 2 8 ; C ooper v. Fle m m i ng , sup ra ; Ra i l roa d v. G reeson , sup ra ; M ul l i ns v . Huds on , 2 H ig
. , 3 5 2 ; Kend ri ck v. Cypert , 10 Hump. , 29 1. T h e p resu m p ti o n o f law is tha t ev ery p ros ecu ti o n is f o u n d e d o n p rob ab le cau se an d in stitu ted o n lyfo r p u rpo ses o f p u b li c jus ti ce. 3 8 C
. J
. , 3 8 6 , 4 8 1
. B u t th is is as far as the p re s u m p ti o n g o es an d the b u rde n o f p roo f is on the co m p laina n t t o sho w that i tr el i ed o n the adv i ce of cou nsel, and i tm ust f

urther show that i tm ade a f u ll , co rr ect an d h o n est d isclo su re t o co u n sel o f a ll the m aterial facts w ith in its knowl e dg e or t ha t c oul d ha ve be e n a s c e r t a i ne d b y r e a s ona bl e di l i g e nc e , a nd tha tthe a dvi c e wa s ho ne s t l y s oug hta nd r e l i e d u pon. 3 8 C. J. , 47 9, 48 0. Un ion S toc kya rd s, Inc
. v. G rissim , 1 3 Te n n . A p p . 1 1 5 , 1 2 5 ( 1 9 3 0 ). W hi l e a n i ndi c t men tbyag r a nd j ur y i s s a i d i n s ome c a s e s t o a l l ow a f a c ti nf e r e nc e of prob able c ause such cases are i n Ten nessee at b estq uesti on able and n ei ther ind i ct m ent nor adv i ce of c ouns e l c a n b e s uc c e s s f ul i n d e f e ns e un l e s s the pr e r e qui s i t e s t o the i ra ppl i c a bi l i t y a ppe a ri n the p ro o f. W e de c l i ne the de f e nda nt s ’ i nvi t a t i on t o a doptthe rul e tha t“ the i ndi c t men t of the a c c us e d b y ag r and jury , i f un e xpl a i ne d, i s e vi de nc e tha tthe pe r s on who i ni t i a t e d t he pr oc e e di ng s ha d pr oba bl e c a us e the r e f or . ” 52 A m . Jur
. 2d M al i c i ous Pr os e c ut i on § 1 7 7 ( 1 9 7 0 ). Th is ru le is o n e o f m an y ru les o n the s u bject an d w e are notc onvi nc e d tha ti ti s e i t he r t he be s t rul e ortha ti ti s i n c onf or mi t y wi th the l a w of m al i ci ou s prosecuti on i n Ten nessee. W here a f i nd i ng i s procured by f r aud , f al se t est i m on y , or w here t he d e f end ant di d n ot bel i eve in the g uil tof the p l ai nti f

f, an in d ic tm e n t is n o t su f

f ic ie n t to b a r a su it f

o r m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n . Jo h n sto n v. Za le Cor porat i on , 4 8 4 S.W
. 2 d 5 3 1 ( T en n . 1 9 7 2 ). N eithe r is th e ad v ice o f co u n sel a de f e ns e whe r e the de f

e nda ntha s f

a i l e d t o ma ke a f

ul l a nd hone s t di s c l os ur e of a l l the fa c ts . M i t c he l lv . Ge orge , 6 3 T e n n .A p p . 4 0 8 , 4 7 4 S .W .2 d 1 3 1 (1 9 7 1 ). Atthi s po i ntthe e l e men tof mal i ci ou snes s do e s no tpo s e apr obl e m f or plai nti f f
. T he absen ce o f

p r ob able cause r ai ses a r ebu t t able pr esum pti on of m al i ce. I ti s s e t t l e d l a w t ha tma l i c e ma y be i nf e rr e d f r om the f a c ttha tac r i mi na l pr os e c ut i on was br oug ht wi t houtpr oba bl e c a us e . [ Ci t a t i ons omi t t e d. ] Th e i nf e r e nc e i s no ton e of l a w buti s a pr e s umpt i on of fa c tw hi c h maybe r e butt e d, t hus m a ki ng m a l i c e an i s s ue

### -33-

to b e d ecid ed b y th e jury w h ere a crim ina l pro sec u ti o n is i n stitu ted w ith o u t pro b ab le cause. L e wi s v . Wi l l i ams , 6 1 8 S.W
. 2 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 3 ( T en n . 1 9 8 1 ). M a lic e m a y als o b e in f

e rre d f ro m m o tiv e s o f th e in s tigato r. Dun n v . A l ab ama Oi lan d Gas Co. , 4 2 Te n n . A p p . 1 0 8 , 2 9 9 S.W
. 2 d 2 5 ( 1 9 5 6 ). Kerne y v . Ae tna Cas
. & Su r e t y Co. , 6 4 8 S.W
. 2 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 2 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 2 ). The s e c ond, thi r d, a nd f ourt h c ount s of

the i ndi c t men ta g a i ns tSa m Spi c e rpr ovi de d: S E COND COUNT

. . . [ S AM S P I CE R] BE ING A P UBL I C S E RVANT , DID UNL AW F UL L Y AND KNOW INGL Y OR IN T E N T IO N A L L Y R E F R A IN F R O M P E R F O R M IN G A D U T Y T H A T I S IM P OS E D BY L AW OR T HAT I S CL E ARL Y INHE RE NT IN T HE NAT URE OF T HE P UBL I C S E RVANT ’ S OF F I CE OR E M P L OYM E NT , T O- W I T : BY RE L E AS ING A P RI S ONE R, J AS ON GOF ORT H , W I T HOUT AUT HORI T Y OF OFFI CER W IL L IAM [ T IM S ON ] , T HE A RR E S T ING O FFI CER, W I TH INTENT T O OB TAI N A BENEFI T OR H AR M A NO THER, I N VI OL ATI ON O F T
. C. A. 39

- 16- 402,

T HI RD COUNT

. . . BE ING A P UBL I C S E RVANT , DID UNL AW F UL L Y AND KNOW INGL Y OR IN T E N T IO N A L L Y R E F R A IN F R O M P E R F O R M IN G A D U T Y T H A T I S IM P OS E D BY L AW OR T HAT I S CL E ARL Y I NHE RE NT I N THE NAT URE OF THE P UB L I C SERVAN T’ S O FF I C E O R EM PL OY M ENT, TO- W I T: AT T E M P T ING T O RE T URN A S T OL E N F I RE ARM T O JAS ON GOF ORT H, T HE P E RS ON T HE F I RE ARM W AS S E IZED FROM , INS T E AD OF M AINT AINING S AI D F I RE ARM AS E VI DE NCE T O BE US E D IN COURT AND T HE N T O BE RE T URNE D T O T HE OW NER , W I TH INT E NT T O OBT AIN A BE NE F I T OR HA RM ANO THER, IN VI OL ATI ON OF T
. C. A. 39

- 16- 102, F OURT H COUNT

### -34- . . . BE ING A P UBL I C S E RVANT , DID UNL AW F UL L Y AND KNOW INGL Y OR IN T E N T IO N A L L Y R E F R A IN F R O M P E R F O R M IN G A D U T Y T H A T I S IM P OS E D BY L AW OR T HAT I S CL E ARL Y INHE RE NT I N THE NATURE OF T HE P UBL I C S E RVANT ’ S OF F I CE OR EM P L OYM E NT , T O- W I T : BY F AIL ING T O F OL L OW THROUGH W I T H T HE ARRE S T P ROCE DURE S OF ONE J AS ON GO FORTH W H O HA D BEEN PL AC ED UND ER ARR EST BY OFFI CER W IL L I AM [ TIM SON] , L AV ERGN E POL I CE DEPARTM ENT, W I TH INTENT T O OB TAI N A BENEFI T OR HAR M ANO THER, IN VI OL ATI ON OF T. C. A. 39

- 16- 402, C o u n ts t w o an d f

o u r o f th e ind ictm en t are p red icated u p o n th e alleg ed fact tha t J aso n G o f o rth ha d b e e n p l a c e d u nd e ra rr e s tby Of f i c e rW i l l i a m Ti ms on on S e pt e mb e r4 , 1 99 7. T he p r oo f s ho ws t hat, except i n the m i nd of Stac e Th om pso n, the all eg ed ‘arr est ’ nev ert oo k p l ace. O f f i cerTimso n testi f

i es: Q. A l l ri g ht
. d i d y ou i nve s t i g a t e a n i nc i de nton Se pt e mbe r4, 19 97, r eg ar ding J ason G oforth an d the sho oti ng of g un s i nside the city l i m i t s? A
. Y es.

. . . . Q. Exh i bi t20 ? Exh i bi t20 , Of f i c e rTi mso n, i s whatI ’ m s howi ng y ou. C an y o u iden ti f

y that, p lease , sir ? A
. Y es, si r . I t ’ s the sup plem ent Iw r ote f or the -

- i n ref

er ence t o the case t h a td a y. Q. W a s i ta c c ur a t e a tthe t i me i twa s wr i t t e n? A
. Y es, sir
. Q
. Y o u s t a n d b e h i n d itto d a y? A
. Y es, sir
. Q
. C an y o u r ead the last tw o sen ten ces , last p aragr ap h o f that? A. I ts a y s the c a s e wa s tur ne d o ve rt o S e r g e a ntSp i c e r an d Det e c t i ve Spr a dl i ng f

orf urt he ri nve s t i g a t i on a nd pr os e c ut i on of the pa r t i e s i nvol ve d. Q. W he n y ou wer e wi th M r . Gof orth o utwhe r e the r e we r e r i f l e s a nd g uns a nd y ou’ d a c t ua l l y r e s pond e d t o the c a l l , w a s M r . Gof orth p utun de ra rr e s tbyy ou or M r. Sp icer? A
. N o , sir
. Q
. W as there any t hing un u s u al or up set t i ng t o y ou abo ut M r . Sp i cer t a ki ng M r . Gof

ort h b a c k t o the po l i c e s t a t i on? A
. W hen Ihad asked M r . Sp i cert o tak e M r. G o forth b ack, he had had hi m j us t dri ve hi s pe r s on a l ve hi c l e ba c k a nd me e tu s the r e d ue t o me n oth a vi ng my patr ol vehicl e.

### -35- . . . . Q. Di d y ou a s k M r . Sp i c e rt o t a ke M r . Gof orth b a c k t o the s t a t i on? A
. Id o n ’tr em em b er th e ex act w o rdin g, b u t Ib eliev e, y es, sir
. Q
. O k ay . Y o u w ere o n a b ike ; i s th at co rr ect? A
. Y es, sir
. Q
. W as there any otherw ay t o g etM r . G oforth b ack to the sta t i on other tha n M r. G o f

o rth d ri v ing h is car or b ein g tr an sp o rt ed b y M r. Sp icer? A
. N o , sir
. Q. How l ong di d i tt a ke y ou t o g e tba c k t o the po l i c e s t a t i on? A
. Prob ablysom ew here 25 - - prob ably20 , 25 m i nu t es. Q. And whe n y ou g otba c k, di d y ou s e e M r . Gof orth? A
. Y es, sir
. Q. W he r e d i d y ou s e e h i m? A. H i m a nd M r . Sp i c e rwe r e i n - - a tthe t i me wha twa s the i nter view r oo m Ibeli eve iti s. Q. W a s a nybo dye l s e i n the i nt e r vi e w r oo m? A
. A t th at t im e Id o n ’tr eca ll
. Q
. D i d D e t e c t i v e S p r a d l i n g i n t e r v i e w M r . G o fo r th th a td a y? A
. Y es, sir
. Q
. H o w lon g d id th at i n terview last? A
. I ’ m n o ts u r e e x a c t l y. Q
. W e re yo u - - tel l m e y o u r f eelin gs ab o u t M r. Sp icer l etti n g M r. Gof ort h d r i ve hi s own carbac k t o the po l i c e de pa r t men t , wha tbo the r e d y ou a bout tha t? A
. If

elt itw as o u t of

the n o rm . W e h ad M r. G o fo rt h , h e w as in po ssessi on of

st olen prop er t y . M y p er son al op i nion w as he sho uld h ave b een p l aced i nt o c us t od y a nd d e t a i ne d a nd c har g e s b r ou g hta g a i ns th i m. Q. W e r e y ou mad a tM r . Spi c e r a t the t i me f ort a ki ng M r . Gof

orth i n l i ke he di d? A
. Y es, sir
. Q. Di d y ou f

i l e a nyf or mal c ompl a i nt s wi th the po l i c e de pa r t men t ? A
. Iw ou l dn ’ tsayi tw as a f orm al com plai nt. Ihad spo ke to Ibeli eve at th e tim e it w a s C h ie f P a tr ic k a b o u t it . A n d th e n it e v o lv e d in to a ll th is o th e r s tu ff
. Q. Di d M r . Spi c e rvi ol a t e a nypo l i c e pr ot oc ol orrul e s orr e g ul a t i ons by t he wa y he tr a ns port e d M r . Gof orth b a c k t o the s t a t i on? A
. N o t th a t I ’m a w a re o f. Q
. W as there a st at e l aw that y ou ’ r e aware of that h e v i olat ed by the w ay he tr a ns port e d M r . Gof ort h b a c k? M R. OAK L EY: Obj e c t i on. As ks f oral e g a l c onc l us i on. THE COUR T: I ’ l l ov e rrul e tha tobj e c t i on. Q
. A f

t erM r . G oforth w as i nter view ed -

- do y ou kn ow w hy he w as in te rv ie w e d b y D e te c tiv e S p ra d lin g? A
. N o , sir
.

### -36- Q. W ha tdi d y ou d o af t e r war d t o f

ol l ow up on the pr os e c ut i on orthe s t ol e n we a pon t ha tM r . Gof ort h h a d? A
. Ih ad tal k ed to M r. S p rad li n g, M r. S p icer a f ew ti m es i n ref

eren ce to w h at w as go ing o n w ith it
. Q. Al l r i g ht
. At a l a t e rt i me di d y ou t a ke ma t t e r s i n y ourown h a nds a nd g e tawa rr a nta g a i ns tM r . Gof orth? A
. Y es, sir
. Q
. A n d w h at’d y o u d o to d o that? A
. I w e n t d o w n to th e m a gi s tr a t e ’ s o ffi c e in R u th e r fo r d C o u n t y, M u rf reesb o ro an d too k o u t th e w arran t. Q
. A n d w h y d id y o u d o that? A
. En ou g h t i m e had el apsed and no thing had been do ne w i th the case, so Iw as go ing to f

inish ito u t. Q
. A n d w h a t w as th e co n clu sio n o f f inish ing o u t th e cas e agains t M r. Gof ort h? A
. Th e char g es w er e dismissed du e t o fai l ure t o p r osecu t e, no teno u gh eviden ce. O n cr oss e xam i nati on O f f i cer Tim son assert ed that he c on si dered G oforth to be un der arr est b u t w e are left w ith a m y s te ry as to w h o arre s te d J a s o n G o f o rth
. Nar c ot i c s Of

f i c e rChr i s t ophe rSp r a dl i ng t e s t i f i e d: Q. Al l r i g ht
. M r . Sp r adli ng, I n 1 997 thr oug h, l e t ’ s s a y , Jun e of 19 98, w h at did y o u d o w ith the LaV erg n e P o li ce D ep artm en t? A
. Iw as a n arco ti cs o f f icer. Q. Do y ou r e c a l l a n i nc i de nt wi th a Ja s on Gof orth on Se pt e mbe r 4, 19 97? A. Yes , s i r , Ido
. Q
. W here w er e y ou atthat ti m e? A
. Iw as in m y o f

f ice at th e p o li ce d ep artm en t. Q. W ha tha ppe ne d? A. Tha te ve ni ng Se r g e a ntSp i c e rbr oug htM r . Gof orth t o myof

f i c e a nd ad v ised m e tha t he h ad b een sh o o ti n g n ear the lake an d - - Q
. W h y d id h e b ri n g h im in to y o u r o f f ice? Y o u w ere a d rug g u y ; correct? A
. Y es, sir
. Q
. N o t th at y o u d id d rugs, y o u w ere o v er th e d rug d ep artm en t; r ig h t? A
. R ig h t. Q
. W hy did he bri ng him , M r . G oforth, i nto y ou rof f i ce? A
. To see i f

w e cou l d p ossiblyob t a i n i nf orm at i on on a st olen w eapo n that w a s f o u n d in h is p o s s e s s io n . Q
. W h at stolen w eap o n are w e talkin g ab o u t? A. Th e w eapo n tha twa s i n M r . Gof orth’ s po s s e s s i on whe n the y f ound t hem sho oti ng atthe lake. Q
. W as M r. G o f

o rth u n d er arr est?

### -37- A
. N o t atthe tim e, n o , sir
. Q. W a s he ha ndc uf f e d? A
. N o , h e w as n o t. Q. Di d y ou ha ve a n i nt e r vi e w wi th M r . Gof orth? A. Yes , Idi d. Q
. H ow l on g did that i nter view t ake? A
. W e w er e there a cou ple hou r s. Q
. D id M r. Sp icer stay the w h o le t im e o r n o t? A
. H e w as in an d o u t. Q
. D id M r. Sp icer - - w as M r. G o f o rth a p ri so n er? A. Nott o mykn owl e dg e , no . Q
. W as he a pri son erw hil e he w as i n y ou rof f i ce? A
. N o , sir
. Q
. A ll r ig h t. W as th ere an y thin g u n u su al ab o u t M r. S p icer b ri n gi n g M r. Gof ort h i n f ory ou t o qu e s t i on h i m? A
. N o , sir , itw asn ’t
. Q
. D id y o u h av e an y tho u ghts at the ti m e tha t M r. Sp icer’s ha v ing M r. G o f o rth co m e in to y o u r o f

f ic e f o r q u e s tio n in g w a s w ro n g? A
. N o , sir
. Q
. H ave y ou had any tho ughts that i tw as w r on g ata l at ert i m e? A
. N o , sir
. Q
. A ll r ig h t. W as ito u t of the o rdin ary in th e p o li ce d ep artm en t f o r M r. S p icer t o d o that? A
. N o , itw asn ’t
. Q
. W h at ab o u t f

o r an y o f f icer t o d o that? A. No. Q
. A f

ter the m eetin g w ith M r. G o f o rth o r the interv iew w as M r. G o f o rth a rr e s t e d im m e d i a t e l y? A
. N o , h e w asn ’t
. Q
. H o w d id y o u en d the interv iew in term s o f d ealin g w ith M r. G o f

o rth an d O f f icer Tim so n an d Se rg ean t Sp icer? A. Il e f

tM r . Gof

orth wi th at a pe pl a y e r , he wa s g oi ng t o tr y t o a udi ot a pe th e p e rs o n th a t h e w a s sa y in g sto le th e w e a p o n . O r th a t h e go t th e w e a p o n f ro m . Q. He a g r e e d t o h e l p y ou? A
. C o rr ect. Q
. B ut w hat ab ou tthe i nv est i g at i on o n the w eapo n? W hat di d y ou say t o M r . Sp i c e ra nd M r . Ti mso n aboutwha tt o d o wi th Gof orth? A
. I d idn ’t really say an y thin g to th em at all
. It w as go ing to b e the ircall. Q
. A ll r ig h t. A n d w h at ha p p en ed w ith M r. Sp icer an d M r. Tim so n ? did t he y d o a ny t hi ng r e g a r di ng M r . Go f orth ord o y ou k no w? A. L a t e ron M r . Gof orth wa s a rr e s t e d. Q
. A ll r ig h t. A n d w h o ins ti gated th at? A. Ibe l i e ve Of

f i c e rTi mso n. Q
. A ll r ig h t. D id y o u testi f y at M r. G o f

o rth ’s tri al?

### -38- A. Yes , Idi d. Q. And wha tdi d y ou t e s t i f y t o? A
. T h at he d id co m e into the p o li ce d ep artm en t and that h e d id try to h elp g e tthe i nf

or mati on f

r om the pa r t y thathe s a i d s t ol e the - - ortha the bo ug htthe we a po n f r om . Q. Di d M r . - - wa s M r . Gof orth f ound g ui l t y orwa s he a c qui t t e d? A. He was a c qui t t e d. S erg ean t Sp icer t estif

ied as to the G o f

o rth incid en t: Q
. D i d y ou kn ow any of the p eop l e? A
. Y es. Q. W ho? A. Ja s on Gof

ort h. Q. How d i d y ou k no w h i m? A. Ove rthe y e a r s I ’ d k nown h i m a s he was g r owi ng up . He l i ve s a bout s i x o rs e ve n d oor s do wn f r om me whe n Il i ve d i n the cit y . And a s he g r e w up I w o u l d s e e h i m o u ta n d a b o u tin th e c i t y. Q. How ol d i s M r . Gof orth o n S e pt e mbe r4, 19 97? A
. Iw ou l d say ear l y 20 s. Q. Ha d y ou e ve ra rr e s t e d hi m? A
. N o , sir
. Q
. D i d h e hav e a cr i m i nal - - w as he a kn ow n cri m i nal t o the po l i ce dep ar t m ent atthat ti m e? A. He was aho ti t e m, e s pe c i a l l y f orthe drug of

f i c e r s be c a us e the y f

e l the was i nvol ve d. I ’ d h e a r d ac oupl e of f i c e r s s a y tha tthe y j us tmi ssed G ofort h orhe mus tha ve g ot t e n ri d of wha t e ve r he ha d be f or e the y g otthe r e , bu tt o myr e c ol l e c t i on, Ido n’ tbe l i e ve he ha d e ve rbe e n a rr e s t e d. Q
. D i d y ou - - w hat’ d y ou do w i th the g un s? A
. T h e w e a p o n s w e re tak e n b a c k to th e LaV e rgn e P o lic e D e p a rtm e n t. Q
. T h en d id y o u call in to see if they w ere sto len o r n o t? A. Y es, s i r . One of the g uns tha t was the r e was a - - I be l i eve itw as a R ugerse mi a ut oma t i c ni ne mi l l i met e rtha tha d b e e n r e port e d s t ol e n af e w months p r i o rto th a td a y. Q
. I s th at a pisto l? A
. Y es, sir
. Q. How di d y ou g e ttha ti nf or mati on tha ti tha d b e e n s t ol e n? A
. W e cal l ed in dispat ch to check the ser i al nu m bers on the w eapo ns that w e re th e re , an d th a t o n e ca m e b a c k a h it o r sto le n .

. . . . Q
. D id y o u take h im in - - w as M r. G o f o rth p u t un d er arr est? A
. N o , sir
.

### -39- Q
. I n S eptem ber o f 1 99 7, i f y ou pu tsom eon e un der arr esti n L aV er g ne, w h at w as th e p roto co l? A. Pl a c e hi m i n h a ndc uf fs , s e a r c h h i m, and puthi m i n t he bac k of apa tr ol car. Q
. D id y o u d ri v e - - h o w ’d y o u g et t o the p o li ce d ep artm en t? A
. If

oll ow ed M r . G oforth in his veh i cl e. Q. Al l r i g ht
. Di d y ou pa tM r . Gof orth d own? A
. N o , sir
. Q. W a s Of

f i c e rTi mso n l e f

ta tthe s c e ne ordi d h e bi c y c l e i n? A
. H e b icy cled o u t t o g o g et his p atrol car. Q. How l ong di d i tt a ke to g e tf r om the Corp o f

En g i ne e r s s i t e , y ou f o ll o w ing M r. G o f

o rth b ack to th e d ep artm en t? A
. Sev en to 10 m i nu t es. Q. W ha tdi d y ou d o wi th M r . Gof orth whe n y ou g otba c k t o the d ep artm en t? A
. W e w al ked i n the l ob by , the f r on tof the p oli ce depart m ent, and Ihad h im sit d o w n in th e f

ro n t w h ile Iw e n t in an d talk e d to D e te c tiv e S p ra d lin g. Q
. W h a t d id y o u tell D e te c tiv e S p ra d lin g? A
. I ’ d ear l i ercall ed dispatch an d t old them t o g ethim en r ou t e i f i tw as a ta l l po s s i bl e . It ol d h i m tha tJa s on Gof orth a nd a c oupl e of

hi s f r i e nds we r e f

ound down a tthe l a ke s hooti ng awe a pon.

O ne o f the w eapo ns co m e up , app ear ed t o be st olen, and If el ti tw as a g r e a t oppo r t uni t y t o be a bl e t o us e Ja s on Gof orth a nd obt a i n s om e i nforma t i on, po ssi bly abo ut drug tr af f i c i n the C i t y of

L aV er g ne. Q. W ha twa s Of

f i c e rSp r a dl i ng ’ s po s i t i on a tthe De pa r t men ton Se pt e mbe r4, 19 97? A
. H e w as the d et ect i ve p r i m ar i l y i n n ar coti cs.

. . . . Q
. W as th e interv iew ab o u t dru gs or g u n s o r w h at? A
. I t st art ed out t o w her e D et ec t i ve Spr adl i ng had st art ed t al kin g w it h hi m a boutw he r e he g ott he w e a pon, i f he c oul d h e l p h i m f

i nd outwhe r e he g otthe wea pon f

r om, tha the m a y be a bl e t o work s ome thi ng ou twhe r e he woul dn’ tbe c ha r g e d wi t h a s t ol e n weapon i f he c oul d pr ove or c onvi nc e hi m tha t he was no tthe o n e th a t h a d sto le n it. Q
. W as M r. G o f

o rth tal k ing o r w as h e q u iet? A. Oh, he wa s runni ng hi s mouth. Q
. W as he adv i sed o f his r i g hts? A
. N o , sir , Id o n ’tr eca ll that. Q
. W a s h e e v e rp l a c e d u n d e ra rr e s tw h i l e h e w a s in yo u rc u s t o d y? A
. N o , sir
.

### -40-

Spi c e r , Ti mso n, a nd Spr a dl i ng we r e the on l y of f i c e r s who k ne w a ny thi ng a tal l aboutthe G oforth inci den t . St ace Tho m pso n w as no tp r esent atan y ti m e, y eth e insist s in his t est i m on y that Ja s on Gof

ort h wa s un de ra rr e s tdu r i ng a l l the e ve nt s tha toc c urr e d o n S e pt e mbe r4, 19 97. Nar c ot i c s D e t e c t i ve Se r g e a ntN i c k W a t s on ha d or i g i na l l y compl a i ne d t o M r . Pi c ka r d d ur i ng t he M a y 8, 19 98 drug s t i ng tha tS pi c e rh a d “ t i pp e d of f ” p ot e nti a l a rr e s t e e s a bo utthe d rug s t i ng . At tr ial, W atso n g av e the f o ll o w ing o p inio n co n cern ing Sp icer’s ha n d li n g o f the G o f o rth incid en t: Q
. A l l r i g ht. I tw as n ot imp r op erp r oced ure f or M r . S picert o h and ov er Gof ort h t o De t e c t i ve Sp r a dl i ng , wa s i t ? A
. I t w asn ’t , b u t - - Q
. Y o u d o n ’tli k e it , b u t i t w asn ’tim p rop er, w as it? A
. I t w a sn’t i m prop er at al l
. C on f i den t i al i nform ant, C ou nselor, a co n f ide n ti al i n f

o rm an t - - if

h e w an ts t o - - if

h e o r sh e, Y o u r H o n o r, if they ’r e in tr ou ble, i f

they see t hey ’ r e i n tr ou ble, y ou kn ow , they w ant t o co op er at e. O ur po l i cy i n n ar coti cs, I ’ ve b een w orking narc oti cs, w e g i ve th em so m e len gth o f

ti m e an d that b ein g, y o u k n o w , that’s - - y o u k n o w , if they d o n ’t prod uce, if

th ey do n’tdo any t hing, y ou kn ow , w e g o ah ead and g etthe w arr ants. W e’ll tal k to th e D A ab o u t i t. Q
. D id y o u ev er t ell M r. Th o m p so n that itw asn ’tim p rop er fo r S p icer t o h a n d o v e r G o f

o rth to S p ra d lin g? A. S a y i ta g a i n no w. Q
. D id y o u ev er t ell M r. Th o m p so n that itw asn ’t- - t h a t it w a s - - d id y o u ev er t ell M r. Th o m p so n that itw as o k ay f o r S p ic e r to h a n d G o f

o rth o v er t o S p ra d lin g f

o r q u e s tio n in g? A
. T h at Id o n ’tr em em b er, b u t th at’s no t i m p rop er. Q
. O k a y. A
. I f M r . G oforth f

el tl i ke h e cou l d d o so m ething, that’ s f i ne. Q
. D i d M r . Th om pso n ev erask y ou w hether or no t[ y ou ] tho ught i tw as im p rop er or n o t? A. No, tha tIdo n’ tr e membe ri f he di d. Q
. D o y o u h av e an y idea w h y M r. Sp icer g o t i n d icted f o r tha t? A
. G o t i n d icted f

o r tha t? Q
. Y es. A
. N o , Id o n ’t
. Q. Do y ou eve n k now s i t t i ng he r e t oda y wi thoutme t e l l i ng y ou tha the g oti ndi c t e d f

ori t ? Do y ou know tha ti nde pe nde nt l y ? L ook a tCount2 of the i nd i ct m ent, si r . by rel easi ng a pri son er , Jaso n G oforth, w i tho ut aut ho r i t y of W i l l i am Ti mso n. Di d y ou know tha twa s pa r tof the i ndi c t men t ? A
. I t w as so m e o f it
. L ike Isaid , C o u n selo r, that w as M r. Th o m p so n ’s

- - y ou kn ow , he w as t aking ov erthe case. Q
. I t w as h is b ab y , w asn ’tit ? A
. A nd Iw orked narc oti cs.

### -41-

W h il e ab so lvin g S ta c e T h o m p so n o f li ab il it y f

o r d efam ation b eca u se h e “k ep t his m o u th sh u t” th e o b serv ation s o f the tri al co u rtas to h is l ack o f o bjectivity in h is i n v estig ation are clearly b o r n e o u tb y T h o m p s o n ’ s o w n te s t i m o n y:

Q. M r . Thomps on, w a s Jas on Gof orth a pr i s one rw he n h e wa s t a ke n f r om Of f i c e rTi mso n b y Sa m Spi c e ron Se pt e mbe r4, 19 97? A
. Y es. Q
. W as he un der arr estw hen he w as t aken by M r . Sp i cert o O f f i cer S p ra d lin g? A. Fr om my i nf

or mati on he w a s notf

r e e t o l e a ve t o e nj oythe l i be r t i e s of a U n ite d S ta te s citiz e n . H e w a s , in f a c t, u n d e r arre s t. Q
. Y o u co u ld h a v e go tte n th a t i n fo r m a tio n f ro m O f f ic e r S p ra d lin g, co u ldn ’ty o u ? H e’s the o n e tha t did the in terview ; correct? A
. Id o n ’ tk n o w w h a tM r . S p r a d l i n g d i d o th e rth a n h i s te s t i m o n y to d a y. Q
. T h e reaso n y o u d o n ’tk n o w w h a t h e d id is b eca u se y o u d idn ’t interv iew h im ; i sn ’tthat ri ght? A
. Id id n o t i n terview h im , n o , sir
. Q
. A n d w h at’d h e say - - THE COUR T: Di d y ou g e tthi s i nf or mati on f

r om Of f i c e rTi mso n? THE W I TNESS : Ye s , Idi d. TH E C O U R T: An d O f f i cerTimso n d i d n ot t el l y ou abo ut O f f i cer Spr a dl i ng ? TH E W I TNESS : Ye s , he di d. W oul d y ou l i ke me t o e xpl a i n, Your H o n o r? TH E C O U R T: Yes, pleas e.

T H E W I T N E S S : Sergean t W atso n an d O f f i cer T im so n w ere v ery ir ate t hat Of f i cerTimso n h ad m ade an arr estof an i nd iv i du al f

or po ssessi on of

st olen p r o p e r t y. T H E C O U R T : W ell, is th ere an arr est?

THE W I TNESS : Ac c or di ng t o wha tOf f i c e rTi mso n t ol d me , y e s , he h ad ev ery inten ti o n o f

b o o k ing the ind ivid u al an d takin g h im to th e co u n tyjai l. T H E C O U R T : So O f

f icer Tim s o n , d id h e f

il e an arr est rep o rt ? D id y o u f o ll o w -up to se e if

h e d id th at? THE W I TNESS : Ye s , a tal a t e rda t e he di d. THE COUR T: W hydi dn’ the f i l e i tt ha tdayi f

he was ma i nt a i ni ng he a rr e s t e d h i m? M R
. K A Y : W e h av e tha t, Y o u r H o n o r.

T H E W I T N E S S : Y o u r H o n o r, h e w as v ery an gry . Y o u ’ve g o t t o un derst and that Ser g eant Spicerw as his ser g eant, and his con cer n w as that M r . Sp i cer h ad r em o v ed f

rom h is cu sto d y w ith o u t con su lt ing h im h is p ri so n er th at he h ad - - THE COUR T: W he n wa s tha tf i l e d?

. . . .

### -42- TH E W I TN ES S: Of

f i cerTimso n w as on bike patr ol ou tatthe lake. Serg eant Spicerw as i n an of f i ce atthe p oli ce depart m ent. He w ent t o back O f f i cer Ti mso n u p, no tt o b e the r e s pond i ng of f i c e r , a c c or di ng t o Of

f i c e rTi mso n. O f f icer Tim so n can ’t tr an sp o rta p ri so n er on a b ike
. So h e too k M r. G o f o rth to th e jail o r to th e p o li ce d ep artm en t. W h en they - - w h en T im so n gets h is bike l oad ed o n h i s caran d back d ow n t o the po l i ce d epart m ent, all this has tr ansp i r ed an d h e h ad n o k n o w led ge of it
.

. . . . Q
. M r. Th o m p so n , loo k at - - T H E C O U R T : So b y th e ti m e h e gets t o the p o li ce d ep artm en t, is M r. G oforth g on e? TH E W I T N E S S : H e ’s n o t in b o o k in g is th e w a y M r. Ti m son exp l ai ned i tt o m e. T H E C O U R T : B u t y o u ’r e h earin g all this aft er th e fact?

T HE W I T NE S S : Ye s , ma ’ a m.

. . . . TH E C O U R T: D i d y ou f i nd any prob l em w i th the procedu r e O f f i cer Spr a dl i ng de s c r i be d?

THE W I TNESS : Ye s , Idi d. T H E C O U R T : W h at? T HE W I T NE S S : W e l l , Yo urHo no r , i f I a rr e s t s om e on e a nd y ou c om e i n - - n otme a ni ng y ou a s aj ud g e , b uta no the rp ol i c e o f f i c e r , c om e i n and t a ke my pri s on e ra nd d on ’ tt a l k t o me a ta l l , I ’ m g oi ng to be upse t . If Iwa ntt o of

f e rmy p ri so n er ov er t o n arco ti cs fo r an interv iew , that’s f ine
. It’ s d o n e ev ery d ay , b u t i f so m eb o d yco m es - -

TH E C O U R T: Do es he hav e any cho i ce? THE W I TNESS : Ye a h. TH E C O U R T: Im ean, i f the - - w hat d o y ou call the, D rug Task Fo r ce w alk ed in an d saw h im o v er the re an d said , h ey , let u s q u estio n this g u y , let’ s see if h e’ll w ear a w ir e, b asica ll y w h at ha p p en s h ere, an d h e’s goin g to i n f o rm u s - - h e’s goin g to w ear this w ir e o n this guy that so ld h im that gun . W h at’s w ron g w ith that?

TH E W I TN ES S: Iw ou l dn ’ tf i nd an y thing w r on g i f

they app r oach ed m e and asked m e.

T H E C O U R T : H a v e n ’ tyo u l o s tyo u rle v e r a ge if yo u go a h e a d a n d s a y, o k ay , let’ s go ah ead an d b o o k y o u an d the n w e’ll thin k ab o u t releasin g y o u w ith this tap e reco rde r? T H E W I T N E S S : W ell, Y o u r H o n o r, in m y ex p erien ce it w o rks b o th way s . If y ou a rr e s tthe m a nd bookthe m, y ou ha ve a c ha r g e pe ndi ng ov e rhi m, y ou c a n a l wa y s g e ti td i s mi s s e d. If the y f a i l t o c oo pe r a t e , i t ’ s a l r e a dybe f or e t he s y s t e m, the co u rt .O f f i cer Sp radli ng l ef

tthe LaV ergne P o lice D e p a rtment atthe b egi nni ng of 1 9 9 8 by a “ m ut ual agreem ent 4 bet ween my s el f

an d M r . P i cka r d. ” At t he t i me of the tr i al , ( N ovemb er199 8), he ha d re t ur ned t o t he LaV er gn e Po l i ce D epar t mentha vi ng been r ehi r ed by O f f i cerT homp s on’ s s uper i ors an d as s i gn ed t o a patr ol posi t i on s ubordi nat e t o O f f i cer T homp s on. I n the i nt er i m Sp r adl i ng ha d been e mp l oy ed by Spi ceras a pr i vat e i nv es t i gat or i n thi s ca s e. 

### -43- T h e o ther w ay y ou can - - I g uess y ou cou l d pr om i se no t t o ch a rge h im , b u t so m etim e s y o u ru n into , y o u k n o w , so m e p eo p le th at are j u st g o ing to di s a ppe a ron y ou. A s there w er e o n ly three of f i cer s, Sp i cer , Timso n, and Sp r adli ng, that had p er son al knowl e dg e of

the G of ort h i nc i de ntof

Se pt e mbe r4, 1997, i tw oul d se e m l og i c a l tha tM r . Th omps on, i n h i s i nve s t i g a t i on, woul d a t l e a s t i nt e r vi e w Of f i c e r Spr a dl i ng . He s i mpl y r e f us e d t o d o s o a s s e r t i ng “ c r e di bi l i t y ” pr obl e ms wi th Of f i c e rSp r a dl i ng . As t o Of f i c e rSp r a dl i ng M r . Th omps on t e s t i f i e d: Q. M r . Th omps on, why di dn’ ty ou i nt e r vi e w M r . Spr a dl i ng a boutthe i nc i de ntwi t h the pri s one r , M r . Gof orth? A. Atthe t i me Iwa nt e d t o i nt e r vi e w M r . Spr a dl i ng , a nd I be l i e ve Iha d -

- Ieith er ha d d if

f icu lt y f ind ing h im o r itw as th e fact tha t If o u n d o u t h e w as ac tua ll y w orking f

or M r . Sp i ceras a PIi n the case. Q. Di d he a ppr oa c h y ou i n the ha l l of L a Ver g ne Po l i c e De pa r t men tl i ke he tes t i f i ed an d said do y ou need t o inte r view m e? A. Nott o myr e c ol l e c t i on. Q
. Y o u d o n ’tr em em b er th at? A
. N o , sir
. Q. You do n’ tr e membe rhi m e ve rvo l unt e e r i ng t o b e i nt e r vi e wed ? A
. N o , sir , Id o n ’tr em em b er th at. Q
. O t her than M r . G oforth, O f f i cerTimso n and M r . S picer , w ho else w as i nvol ve d S e pt e mbe r4, 19 97, a tt he pol i c e dep a r t men ti n i nt e rr og a t i ng M r . Gof orth? A
. Ido n’tkn ow of any bo dy el se.

. . . . Q. Di d i tpe a k y ourc ur i osi t y as t o whe the rM r . Sp r a dl i ng ha d a ny c onve r s a t i ons wi t h M r . Sp i c e ra nd wha tthe y we r e i n y ouri nve s t i g a t i on? A
. Y es. Q. W hydi dn’ ty ou a s k M r . Sp r a dl i ng , the n? A. A s Ia ns wer e d b e f or e , bythe t i me Idi d, Ie i the rwa s un a bl e t o g et a ho l d of h i m o rh a d a l r e a dyd i s c ov e r e d hi m wo rki ng f orh i m. Q. W e l l , e ve n i f

h e ’ s wo rki ng f

orh i m, wh y d i dn ’ ty ou i nt e r vi e w h i m? A. W e l l , i f

Ithoug ht that he was worki ng f orhi m, Iwoul d h a ve a p p r o a c h e d th e D A , s o m e b o d y l i k e th a ta n d a d v i s e d th e m th a th e w a s th e i rP I. 4

. . . .

### -44- Q
. Y ou t est i f

i ed in y ou rdep osit i on , d i d y ou n ot, that y ou hav e a prob l em w i t h M r . S p r a d l i n g’ s c r e d i b i l i t y? A. Yes , Ido
. I n m al i ci ou s prosecuti on case s w here a def end ant r el i es up on adv i ce of cou nsel as a def ense, he mus t e s t a bl i s h t ha t he ha s pr e s e nt e d t o the a tt or ne y g e ne r a l a l l mat e r i a l fa c t s a s c e r t a i na bl e bythe exerci se of

du e dil i g ence. If

he has do ne so and the att orney g eneral th e n s e e k s an d o btai ns an i ndi c t men t , the de f

e nda nti s no tl i a bl e form a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on. W he r e he ha s no tpr e s e nt e d t o the at t orney g eneral “a f

ull and ho nest pr esentati on of al l m at er i al , ascert ai nab l e fact s” the d ef ense fai l s. Perry v. Sh arb er , 8 0 3 S.W
. 2 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 6 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). M r . Th omps on t e s t i f

i e d: Q
. Th er e w er e som e things, tho ugh, abo ut M r . Sp r adli ng that the d i str i ct at t orney didn ’ tkn ow , w er en’tthere? A. Id on ’ tk no w. Q
. Y ou ’ ve tes t i f

i ed y ou ’ ve g i ven a ll the inf orm at i on t o the distr i ct a t t o r n e y , a n d wh a t I t h i n k wh a t e v e r - - th a t y o u ’ d g i v e n a l l th e i n f o r ma t i o n t o t he d istr ict attorn ey ; correct? A
. Y es, si r . Ig ave ital l of m y case f

i l e. Q
. Y o u d id n ’t in te rv ie w M r. S p ra d lin g? A
. N o , sir
. Q
. D o y o u thin k itw o u ld h av e b een im p o rt an t f o r the d istrict attorn ey to hear M r . Sp r adli ng’ s op i nion that G oforth w as n ot u nd erarr est ? D o y ou think that w o u ld h av e b een im p o rt an t, M r. Th o m p so n , o r n o t? A. I be l i e ve - - I be l i e ve the di s tr i c t a t t or ne y t a l ke d t o M r . Sp r a dl i ng h im s e lf. Q. You do n’ tkn ow tha tf oraf a c t , do y ou? A
. N o , sir , Id o n ’t
. Q
. A ll r ig h t. It w o u ld b e, tho u gh, im p o rt a n t in y o u r inv estig ation in g i vi ng the di s tr i c ta t t or ne y i nf or mati on tha t a nothe r of f i c e r i n the de pa r t men tha d a d if f eren t op inio n than y o u as to w h eth er o r n o t the arrest w as d o n e o n G o f o rth o r n o t? T h at’d b e im p o rt an t i n f o rm ation , w o u ldn ’tit ? A. Anothe rof

f i c e r ’ s op i ni on? Q
. A n o the r w it n ess ’s op inio n . It w o u ld b e im p o rt an t, w o u ldn ’tit ? A
. Id o n ’tk n o w if I ’d sa y h is o p inio n w as i m p o rt an t. Pro b ab lyh is r ecoll ect i on s w ou l d b e. Q
. A l l r i g ht. An d y ou nev e r go this r ecoll ect i on t o g i ve the distr i ct a t t or ne y , di d y ou? A
. N o , sir , Id idn ’t
. Q. I twoul d a l s o h a ve b een i m port a nt- - a n i mpor t a ntf a c t orf orthe distr i ctatt orney t o h earM r . Sp r ad lin g s ay that there w as no thing w r on g w i th w hat O f f icer Sp icer did r egardin g M r. G o f o rth
. Th at w o u ld h av e b een im p o rt an t, w o u ldn ’t it ?

### -45- A
. Ib eliev e Ian sw ered that u n d er op inio n , b u t Id o n ’t b e liev e tha t his opi ni on woul d h a ve be e n i mpor t a nt , no . Q. Eve n - - y ou don’ te ve n thi nk tha tthe di s tr i c ta t t orney w oul d h a ve l i ke d t o h a ve he a r d h i s op i ni on? A
. A s Ist at ed, I do n’t kn ow i t t o be a fact , bu t Ibeli eve h er e t od ay that t he di s tr i c ta t t or ne y di d h e a rhi s op i ni on. Q. I ’ m j usta s ki ng y ou whe the rorno ti twoul d b e i mpor t a nti n y our pr e s e nt a t i on t o the di s tr i c ta t t or ne y of a l l the f a c t s t hat an othe rof

f i c e r , tha tbe i ng S p rad li n g, d idn ’tthin k that G o f o rth w as u n d er arr est. I s itim p o rt an t or n o t? A
. N op e. Q
. N o t i m p o rt an t? A. Noti n myop i ni on, no . Q. W hyi s i tno ti mpor t a nt , M r . Th omps on, that anot he rof f i c e rwho actu allyinterv iew ed the p ri so n er did n ’tthin k h e w as u n d er arr est? A. I t ’ s my opi ni on t ha tbec a us e he wa s worki ng f orthe Sp r a d - - f

orthe Spi c e r s a s the i ri nve s t i g a t ortha thi s op i ni on woul d b e t a i nt e d. Q
. B e tainted
. H e’d b e ly ing; co rr ect? A
. I do n’t kn ow i f he’d l i e, bu t Ididn ’ tw ant t o g o ther e. Seem ed li ke a co n f li ct of interes t t o ev en tal k to h im ab o u t i t. Q. You di dn’ twa ntt o g o the r e be c a us e y ou kne w t ha tM r . Sp r a dl i ng mi g hthav e i nf

or mati on t ha tw oul d be di f f e r e ntt ha n whaty ou wer e g oi ng t o p r e s e nt t o the distr i ctatt orney ; i sn’tthat true? A. No. Q
. Y o u m ad e a co n scio u s d ecisio n , d id y o u n o t, n o t t o interv iew M r. S p ra d lin g? A
. Y es. Q
. A nd y ou m ade thatdecis i on be c ause y ou kn ew that he had a dif f er ence of op i nion as t o w hat had tr ansp i r ed w i th the G oforth even to n Sep t em ber 4 an d w hat y ou wer e pr e s e nt i ng t o Ge ne r a l W hi t e s e l l ? You kn e w t ha t , di dn’ ty ou? A
. T h e q u estio n - - M R. OAK L EY: Obj e c t i on. T ha t ’ s ac ompoun d q ue s t i on. M R. KAY : Br e a k i tdo wn the n. THE COUR T: Br e a k i tdo wn.

BY M R. KAY: Q
. Y ou kn ew - - y ou didn ’ ti nter view M r . S pradli ng b ecause y ou kn ew t hat he had a dif

f er ence of op i nion than y ou on w hether or no tM r . G oforth w as un der arrest or n o t? A
. N o . Q. The on l y r e a s on y ou di dn’ ti nt e r vi e w M r . Sp r a dl i ng w a s be c a us e y ou tho u ght h e m ig h t be tain te d b eca u se h e w as n o w w o rkin g as M r. Sp icer’s inv estig ato r?

### -46- A. Tha t ’ s no tthe on l y r e a s on. Q. W ha t ’ s the othe rr e a s on? A
. Icou l dn ’ tg etaho l d o f him f or a w hil e. Q. And the othe rr e a s on was , y ou t e s t i f i e d y e s t e r da y , y ou di dn’ tthi nk he w as a cred ible p erso n ; correct? A
. I

- - y ou asked m e af t er did Ithink he w as a cr edible person . M y answ erw as no , du e t o so m e per son al m at t er s. Th e f ou rcou nt i nd i ct m ent ag ai nst Sam Sp i cerw as r eturned by the g r and j ury on N ov em ber 4, 19 98
. On Ju ne 2 , 19 99 , ov erthe v igo ro u s o bject i on s of Th om pso n an d P oli ce C hief M orr i s, D i str i ctA t t orney G eneral W i l l i am C
. W hit esel l , J r . en t er ed a n o lle p r o s e q u i. The tr i a l c ourtf ound i n n o u ncert ai n term s that al l of the ch ar g es i n the i nd i ct m ent ag ai nst Sam Sp i cerw er e g r ou nd l ess and that , a s t o c ount s t wo a nd f ourof the i ndi c t men t , Ja s on Gof orth h a d n e ve rbe e n p l a c e d u nd er arrest i n the f

ir st p lace. T h e ev ide n ce n o t on lyp rep o n d erates in f av o r o f the f ind ings o f

the tri al co u rt bu ti s i nd eed o verw helm i ng. Ho w ever, the tri al cou r tf ou nd that si nce itw as the att orney g eneral w ho prese nted t he c ase t o the g r and j ury w i th r esult i ng i nd i ct m ents, Plai nti f f had fai l ed t o establi sh lack o f p rob ab le cau se. F rom this f ind ing Sp icer pe rf

ected h is cros s ap p eal. The pr oof

e s t a bl i s he s wi t houtqu e s t i on tha tthe pr os e c ut i on of Sp i c e rwa s a tthe i ns t i g a t i on of P i ckard and the i nsist ence of S t ace T ho m pso n. W hil e the d ef ense i nsist s that the p r osecu t i on w as i n factthat of

At t or ne y Ge ne r a l W hi t e s e l l the pr oof i s t o the c ontr a r y . S t a c e Th omps on i s the prosecu t or on the indict m ent. The o nly t w o w itn e s s es t o testi f y bef ore the g r and j ury w er e Sta ce Th om pso n an d W i l l i am T i m son . Th e att orney gener al m ade n o ind epen den ti nv est i g at i on of the case pr i ort o g oi ng t o the g r a nd j ur y bu tr e l i e d o n the i nf or mati on g i ve n t o h i m bySt a c e Th omps on. Pa r t i c ul a r l y a s t o c ount s t wo and f ourof t he i ndi c t men tr e l a t i ve t o t he Ja s on Gof orth i nc i de nt , no body t old the att orney g eneral pri or t o th e re turn o f the indict m ent that Jason G oforth w as never pl aced unde ra rr e s tby any one . The pr os e c ut orne ve rt ol d the a t t or ne y g e ne r a l tha tthe po l i c y f ol l owe d b y Spi c e ran d S pr a dl i ng i n the ha ndl i ng of the Gof orth c a s e wa s apr oc e dur e g e ne r a l l y us e d b y the p o li c e d e p a rt m e n t in u n d e rc o v e r w o rk p a rt ic u la rl y c o n c e rn in g n a rc o ti c s . A tt o rn e y G e n eral W h it ese ll t e s t i f i e d: Ih ad b een co n cern ed f rom the v ery startthat a lot o f the ev ide n ce w as su bject t o i nt e rpr e t a t i on. Iha d wa i t e d q ui t e awhi l e t o t a ke the c a s e t o the Gr a nd Jury . Duri ng t hi s t i me - - a nd I ’ m notg oi ng t o s a y Iwa s pr e j udi c e d, bu tc e r t a i nl y M r . Th omps on, a nd I wan t t o s a y pr oba bl y Chi e f [ M orr i s ] t oo, woul d c a l l i n a nd i nqui r e on the s t a tus o f the cas e. A n d Igo t to th e p o int w h ere Id ecid ed , w ell, m ay b e the thin g to d o h ere is t o p resen t w h at w e d o h av e to a G ran d J u ryan d letthe p an elists de cid e. Th at’s w hat Idid. They of

cou r se r eturned this i nd i ct m ent af t er w ar ds. A f ter the ind ictm en ts h ad b een r etu rne d agains t Sp icer, G en eral W h it ese ll h ad the “rare ben ef i t ” of the d ef end ant and hi s at t orney com i ng t o h i m t o d i scuss the fact s of the case. M r . Sp i cer app ear ed with his at t orney M r . Ed H i l and
. Gen er al W hit esel l t est i f i ed co ncerning his act i on s af t er t he co nf er ence “So af

t erthat conv er sat i on Icon cl ud ed that the m ost Icou l d say w as that M r . Sp i cer

### -47-

h a d m a d e erro rs o f

ju d gm e n t, o r th a t a ju ry w o u ld se e it a s e rro rs o f ju d gm e n t. I d e c id e d [th a t] to go f o rw a rd w ith th e p ro s e c u tio n w o u ld n o t b e b e n e f ic ia l f o r eith e r sid e .” As Judg e Fe l t s s t a t e d i n Th ompso n v. S chu lz, sup ra , the d ef ense of adv i ce of

cou nsel i s an a f f i r mati ve de f

e ns e un de rwhi c h the bu r de n of pr oof r e s t s on t he def

e nda nt . W hi l e f

ors ome r e a s on onl y the f

i r s tpa g e of

the de f e ndan t ’ s a ns wera ppe a r s i n the r e c or d, we wi l l a s s ume tha tthe def end ants i n this case r el i ed u po n this af f i r m at i ve d ef

ense. A l tho ugh adv i ce of the att orney g eneral c a n c o n s titu te a d e f

e n s e to a m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n ac tio n , Coope rv . Fl e mm i ng , 114 T e nn. 40 , 84 S
. W
. 8 0 1 , 6 8 L
. R
. A
. 8 4 9 ; P eop le’s Pr o tective L if e Ins
. C o . v. Neu h o

ff , 40 7 S
. W
. 2d 196 (T e n n .C t.A p p . 1 9 6 6 ), th e d e f e n s e req u ire s f

u ll d is c lo s u re in o rd e r to su c c e e d
. Perry v. Sh arb er , 80 3 S
. W
. 2 d 2 2 3 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). A t l east as t o coun t s t w o and f ou r of the indict m ent any def ense b ase d u p o n ad v ice o f

co u n sel fails un d er th e p roo f in th is case , an d t h e trial co u rtw as in err o r in d ism issin g the m aliciou s p ros ecu ti o n case as to thes e co u n ts o f the in d ictm en t. A s t o co un t s on e and t hree of t he i nd i ct m ent w e do no tf i nd that the ev i den ce pr epo nd er at es ag ai nst the tri al cou r t ’ s act i on i n dis m i ssi ng the mali ci ou s prosecu t i on case. C ou nt on e i nv olves an i nciden ti n w hich t he h ear say st at em ent of Jim m y B a ll w a s prese nted t o the g r and j ury by Stac e T ho mp s on , a nd the r e c or d f urt he r s ho ws tha t a t s om e po i nt the a t t orne y g e ne r a l i nt e r vi e we d Ji mmy B all. Th e reco rd d o es n o t sh o w , h o w ev er, w h eth er th is i n terview o ccu rr ed p ri o r to o r su b seq u en t t o th e retu rn o f

th e in d ic tm e n t. T h e tr ial co u rto b serv ed as to this co u n t of the in d ictm en t: A lth o u gh, n o w w e k n o w this m o torcy cle h ad b een sto len 1 2 y ears p rev iou sly an d there w o u ld h av e b een n o w a y th e y co u ld h av e ev er pro v en that an y o n e in po ssessi on of

that mo t orcy cl e by this ti m e had com m i t t ed a cr i m e or that i tw as i l l eg al t o p os s e s s i t , e ve n M r . Th omps on s a i d, we l l , he r e a l i z e d i twa s 12 y e a r s ol d. S o h e didn ’ tg o try t o g eta sear ch w arr ant. Bu tany w ay , M r. Sp i ceri s i nn ocen tof that co u n t. T h e ch arg e o n it s face b o rde rs o n b ein g f ri v o lou s. H o w ev er, the p resen ce o f J im m y C arl B all, ag ent f or the Nati on al I nsu r ance C r i m e B ureau, of f er s an i nd epen den t basis f or the att orney g eneral t o a c ton the c ha r g e . As t o c ounton e of the i ndi c t men tthe j udg men tof the tr i a l c ourti s a f

f i r med
. A s t o co un tthree of

the indict m ent the p r oo f i n the r ecord sho w s that atm ost Sam Sp i cer a s ke d i f the g un c oul d be r e t ur ne d t o Ja s on Gof orth. No ef

f ortw a s a c tua l l y ma de t o r e tur n the g un G o f o rth
. Th e attorn ey g en eral say s “th at’s no t a cr im e Iw o u ld p ros ecu te. ” W h il e th e tr ial co u rt f ou nd Sam Sp i cert o b e “absolutel y i nn ocen t ” of the ch arge in c ou nt three of the indict m ent, that f i ndi ng i s no ta n a ns wer t o t he que s t i on of whe the r or not the pr os e c ut or wi thhe l d a nyi nf or mati on f rom the atto rne ygen eral th at w o u ld p rev en t h im f rom rely ing o n ad v ice o f co u n sel. It i s d if

f icu lt t o g l e a n f

r om the t e s t i mony of

Sp i c e r , W a t son , o r an y bodye l s e whe the rthe g un di s c l os e d b y the ev ide n ce w as the s tolen gu n u sed b y J aso n G o f o rth o n Se p tem b er 4, 19 9 7 , o r the o n e u sed b y h im mo nths l a t e ri n r e pe l l i ng ab r e a k- i n a th i s h om e . Gi ve n the di f f i c ul t i e s of

r e s ol vi ng tha tq ue s t i on we are n o t prep ared to rev erse th e f ind ings o f

the tri al j u d ge as to co u n t th ree o f the in d ictm en t.

### -48-

W hil e Po l i ce C hief

H ow ar d M orr i s w as a m ov i ng f orce beh i nd the p r osecu t i on of Sam Sp i cer i t cann ot be s ai d f

r om t he e viden ce t hat he withh el d any i nform at i on f r om the d is tric t atto r ney gen eral or tha t h is a ction s ros e to th e lev el of m aliciou s p ros ecu ti o n . D w ay n e H ick s w as v o lun tari ly d ism issed as a d ef

en d an t b y P la in ti f

fs. Th e jud gm en t of

the tri al co u rtas to H o w ard M o rr is i s a f f i r med
. I V
. D am ag es Th e tr i al cou r taw ar ded Ser g eant Sp i cer$ 1,00 0,00 0 i n com pen sat ory d am ag es and aw ar ded K aren Sp icer $2 5 0 , 0 0 0 in d am ages fo r lo s s o f co n so rt ium
. In m ak ing the se aw ard s th e tr ial co u rt obs e r ve d: Hav i ng f o u n d th a tMr
. P i c k a r d i s g u i l t y o f d e fa ma t i o n a n d h a vi ng f ou nd there has b een cl earand con vincing eviden ce that he defam ed M r . Sp i cer , that i twa s wi t h ma l i c e , i nt e nt i on, w i l l f ul , g ui l t y of

s ome f r a udul e nta c t s , my ne xtqu e s t i on i s t o d et er m i ne d am ag es.

N o am ou nt of

dam ag es could co m pen sat e M r . S piceran d M s. Sp i cer fort he c o n d u c ti n th i s c a s e . L i f e t e a c h e s u s a l l th e r e ’ s n o th i n g h a r d e ro n ape r s on t ha n b e i ng a c c us e d o f

s ome t hi ng the y di dn’ tdo
. You’ r e ha r d o n y our s e l f i f y ou do s ome thi ng wr ong , y ou’ r e ha r d o n y ou r sel f if y ou getcau g ht, b ut w hen y ou ’ r e accu sed of d oing som ething w r on g , that i s the ul t i mat e pu ni s hme nt , and t ha t ’ s w ha tM r . Spi c e r ’ s [ s i c ] had t o e ndur e f orf our y ear s. Hi s wi f

e s uf f e r e d l os s of

c ons ort i um, a bs ol ut e l y . T he pr oof, I ’ ve g ot doc t orbi l l s , me di c a l bi l l s [ t ot a l i ng ] abo ut- - w e l l , $4 , 850 ba s e d o n the de pos i t i on of Dr
. M a r i e Go. S he t e s t i f i e d aboutOf

f i c e rSp i c e r ’ s de pr e s s i on. Idi dn’ tha ve t o h a ve ex pertt e s t i mony t o t e l l me he wa s de pr e s s e d. Ididn ’ thav e t o h ave exp ertt est i m on y t o tel l m e he suf f er ed h um i l i at i on and w as un able t o slee p, un able t o eat, un able t o g o ou t . H e testi f i ed. H e w as ver y cr edible, his wif e w as ver y cr edible.

. . . . ButI ’ m g oi ng t o a war d M r . Spi cer$1 mi l l i on. L i ke the Courts a i d, t he r e ’ s no a mountof

mone y t ha tca n c ompe ns a t e ape r s on f orthe l os s of

r e put a t i on, f orthe hu mi l i a t i on e ndur e d.

I ’ m a war di ng hi m a do l l a rada y f orhi s l os s of

r e put a t i on. T ha t ’ s no t co m p en satio n . H e’s h ad f o u r y ears h e’s p u t up w ith this, n o t to m e n ti o n Ih av en ’t eve n g one i nt o t he f

a c ttha tthe p r e s s wa s c a l l e d the d a y the s e i nd i c t me nt s c a me d o w n . A n d the in d ictm en ts d idn ’tam o u n t t o a h il l of b ean s af ter itw as all ov er. Buta f t e rM r . Sp i c e rha d c a l l e d t o s a y he wa s co m i ng i n, tur ni ng him sel f i n, con ven i entl y there’ s the p r ess wait i ng t o f i l m him o n thataw f

ul day w hen h e h a d to f

a c e , a c c u s e d in fro n t o f a ll h is fello w m e n c rim in a l w ro n g d o in gs, th in gs he di dn’ tdo
.

### -49- O n h is w if

e’s los s o f

co n so rt ium claim , los s o f co n so rt ium is ha rd to c ompe ns a t e f

orbe c a us e Ikn ow the y ’ r e hu s ba nd a nd w i f e , a nd i t ’ s be e n f

ourl ong y e a r s ba s e d o n [ t he ] t e s t i mony of t he of t he doc t or , Dr
. Go, tha the ’ s be e n d e pr e s s e d. H i s w i f e t est i f i ed ab ou tho w dif

f er ent he i s, ho w she’s basic al l y had to k eep h im g o ing, try to m ak e h im p o siti v e, co u ldn ’tm ak e h im p o siti v e, k eep h im g oi ng . Butf

oury e a r s of

l os s of c ons ort i um, I ’ m g oi ng t o a war d h e r$2 50, 000. N o w , to th e ex ten t th at th is case w il l pro b ab ly be ap p ealed Iw o u ld l i ke t o ma ke s ome c ommen t s a bout- - o r some f i ndi ng s a boutmy r e a s ons f or aw ard ing this am o u n t o f d am ages. L ike Isaid , M r. Sp icer ha s su f f ered f o u r y ears, i n e xc e s s of 1, 400 da y s of

hu mi l i a t i on of

be i ng wr ong f

ul l y a c c us e d. Th i s w as his on e chance to tr y t o co nv i nce som e autho r i t y that he w as i nnoc e nt , a nd no a mountof co m pe ns a t i on c a n c ompe ns a t e hi m f ortha t . A mi l l i on d o ll ars w o u ldn ’tco m p e n sate h im , b u t Ib eliev e a m il li o n d o ll ars is r eas o n ab le con si deri ng al l the fact s i n this case. L i ke I sai d, Ican’ tm ake a f i nd i ng on al l tho se facts. T h at w o u ld b e the jud gm en t of the C o u rt . N ow , I ’ m no taw ar ding pu nit i ve d am ag es i n th is c a s e no tbecause I d o n ’tf eel an y are no t d ese rve d b u t b eca u se the C o u rtw an ts to tryto co m p en sate M r. S p icer [ ] an d h is w if

e f o r this trem en d o u s w ron g tha t w as d o n e to a p u b li c serv an t. A s a gen eral ru le th e am o u n t of d am ages rests larg ely in t h e d iscretion o f the tri er of fact, w h o se f ind ings are en ti tl ed to gr eat w eight o n ap p eal. The a mo u n t t o b e a wa r d e d i n p e r s o n a l i n j u r y c a s e s r e s t s l a r g e l y i n t he d is c re tio n o f

th e trier o f

f a c t. Sh el lO i lC o. v. Blanks , 46 Te nn. App. 53 9, 54 8, 33 0 S
. W
. 2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 3 ( 1 9 5 9 ). Th e am o u n t allo w ab le a s d am ages f o r p erso n al i n

juries in t orta c t i ons ar e notm e a s ur e d by f i xe d r ul e s of

l a w, bu tr e s tl a r g e l y i n the di s c r e t i on of the tr i er of fact and i s enti t l ed t o g r eat w ei g ht i n the app el l at e cou r t s i n the absen ce o f a s h o w in g o f

frau d o r co rru p tio n . B lalo ck v. Te m p le , 38 Te nn. App. 46 3, 47 0, 27 6 S.W
. 2d 49 3, 49 7 (19 54 )
. The am o u n t a l l ow able a s com pen sat i on f or per son al i nj ur i e s ar e notm e a s ur e d by f i xe d r ul e s of

l a w, butr e s tl a r g e l y i n the di s c r e t i on of the tr i er of fact and dam ag es i n per son al i njury cases w i l l no t be di sturbe d o n ap p e al un l ess amo un t s f

i xed ar e so excessi ve as t o i nd i cat e passi on , prej ud i ce and cap r i ce o n th e p a rt o f

th e trier o f

f a c t. Fi nks v . Gi l l um , 38 Te nn . A pp. 30 4, 31 9- 20, 27 3 S
. W
. 2 d 7 2 2 , 7 3 0 ( 1 9 5 4 ). C o a kley v. D a n iels , 8 4 0 S.W
. 2 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 2 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). I t ha s b e e n said that “[i] n action s o f d efam ation the w ron g d o n e to a p laintif f is pe cu li arly d if f ic u lt to m easure according t o a m on ey st and ar d.” E dw a rdLa m b v. Pa t Su tto n , et al. , 16 4 F
. S u p p . 9 2 8 , 9 3 1 ( M
. D
. Te n n . 1 9 5 8 ). Thi s Courtha s he l d:

### -50- U n d er Te n n ess ee la w , a p laintif f is r eq u ir ed to p rov e actu al da m ages in all defam at i on cases . Handl e y v . M ay , 58 8 S
. W
. 2d 772, 77 6 ( Te nn. App. 19 79)
. T he actu al da m age r eq u ir em en t w as d iscu sse d b y the U n it ed S tates S u p rem e C o u rtin G ertz v. Ro bert Welch, I nc. , 4 1 8 U
. S
. 3 2 3 , 9 4 S.C t. 2 9 9 7 , 4 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 7 8 9 ( 1 9 7 4 ): W e n eed n o t defi n e “ac tua l i n jur y,” a s t rial co u rt s h av e w ide ex p erien ce in f r am i ng app r op r i at e j ury i nstructi on s i n tortact i on s. Su f f i ce i tt o say that actu al i n jury is no t l im it ed to o u t- o f-po ck et lo ss. I n d eed , the m o re cu sto m ary t y pe s of a c t ua l harm i nf

l i c t e d b y de fa mat or y f

a l s e hood i nc l ude i mpa i r men tof r epu t at i on and st and i ng i n the c om m un i t y , person al hu m i l i at i on , and m ental an guish an d su f

f ering. O f co u rse, juries m u st b e li m it ed b y a p p rop ri ate i nstructi on s, and al l aw ar ds m ust be sup po r t ed b y com petent e v id e nce con cer ning t he i njury , al tho ugh there need be n o ev i den ce wh i ch assi g ns an a c tu a l d o lla r v a lu e to th e in ju ry . Id
. at34 9-50 , 94 S. C t . at30 12
. The fai l ure t o pr ov e special dam ag es or ou t
- of

- po cket lo s s e s is n o t n e c e s s a rily d e te rm in a tiv e . Han dley , 5 8 8 S.W
. 2 d a t 7 7 6
. T h e issu e is whe t he rthe r e c or d c ont a i ns a nyma t e r i a l e vi de nc e of i mpa i r men t of r e put a t i on a nd s ta n d in g in th e co m m u n ity , p e rs o n a l h u m ilia tio n , o r m e n ta l an gu is h an d su f f e rin g. I d. Myers v . Pic keri ng Firm, I nc. , 9 5 9 S.W
. 2 d 1 5 2 , 1 6 4 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). I n a cl oselyan al ogou s case the S up r em e C ou r tof So uth C ar oli na ad dressed a $25 0,00 0 actual dam ag e and $5 00 , 00 0 p un i t i ve d am ag e award t o a po l i ce of f i cerf or d e fa m a tio n. In the case A ssi st ant Poli ce C hief M i l l erhad been accused b y f el l ow emp l oy ee, M s. D avis, of sexu al ha r a s s men t . G. F. Br oom, c i t y admi ni s tr a t or , sub mi t t e d Davi s t o a pol y g r a ph t e s twhi c h s he f a i l e d. M i l l erthen decli ned t o take a po l y g r aph t est absen t cert ai n cond i t i on s. Broo m thereup on con cl ud ed tha t M i l l erhad i n fac ts exual l y har as se d Davi s w hen M i l l err ef use d the pol y g r aph t es t . The c o u rt r e c i t e d: As a r e s ul ta nd i n the pr e s e nc e of Sa l t e r s a nd Jone s , Br oom de c l a r e d tha the had no cho i ce bu tt o conclud e that M i l l er had sexu al l y harassed D avis a nd had l i ed a bouti t . Br oom f

urt he re xpl a i ne d tha the wa s i mmedi a t e l y s us pe ndi ng M i l l era nd wou l d r e c o mm e n d t o t h e W e s t Co l u mb i a Ci t y Co u n c i l th a t h e b e t e r mi n a t e d. T he n e x t d a y , T

h e S tate n e ws pape rp r i nt e d a n a r t i c l e r e g a r di ng M i l l e r ’ s s us pe ns i on . T wo da y s l a t e r , M i l l e rop t e d t o r e t i r e e f f e c t i ve De c e mbe r31 , 19 88. 4 7 1 S.E
. 2 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 5 ( S
. C
. 1 9 9 6 ). I n u phol di ng the j ur y ve r di c ta s t o d a mag e s the c ourthe l d: Br oom’ s de fa mat or y s t a t e men tef f e c t i ve l y de s tr oy e d M i l l e r ’ s r e put a t i on a nd e nde d hi s di s t i ng ui s he d t wen t y - f i ve y e a r l a w e nf

or c e men t c a r e e r . M i l l e r ha d b e e n the a s s i s t a ntchi e f

of pol i c e forse ve nt e e n y e a r s , and dur i ng t hi s t i me he ha d r e c e i ve d the hi g he s ta war ds a va i l a bl e t o l a w e nf or c e men t of

f i c e r s . Howeve r , a f

t e r r e s i g ni ng f

r om

### -51-

the W est C o lum b ia P o li ce D ep artm en t, M il ler h ad d if f icu lt y o b tainin g em p loy m en t. W he n c ons i de r i ng tha ta pe r s on’ s r e put a t i on i s i nva l ua bl e , we c onc l ude tha tBr oom has fai l ed t o est abli sh t hat the v er dicti n this m at t erw as g r osslyexcessi ve. Th er ef ore, the trial co u rtd id n o t err in d en y ing B roo m ’s m o ti o n f o r a n ew trial. M il ler v. C it

y o f West C o lum b ia , 47 1 S
. E. 2d a t68 7. Th e defam at ory act i on s of Pickar d e f

fe c t i velydestr oy ed S picer ’ s f ou r t een y earcar eeras a p o li ce o f f icer, sad d led h im w ith p u b li c ri d icu le, an d o the rw ise h u m il iated h im
. A p p roa ch ing m idd le ag e he w as f

orced t o se ek o t her e m ploy m ent with loss of al l ben ef

i t s of his em ploy m ent as pol i c e ma n , i n c l u d i n g m a t c h i n g 4 0 1 k r e t i r e me n tb e n e f i t s a n d j o b s a t i s fa c t i o n . Me d i c a l pr oof discl oses t hat both h e and his w i f e suf f er ed d epressi on and hu m i l i at i on as a r esultof these act i on s. The compensa t or y damag e awar ds made by the tr i al j udg e i n the amoun t of $1, 000, 00 0 to Serg eant Spicerand $2 50 , 00 0 to his w if e K ar en S picerar e a m at t erof m uch con cer n in this ca se. W e c a nnots a y f

r om ac a r e f

ul s t udyof

the c ol d p r i nt e d r ecord i n thi s c a s e tha twe woul d h a ve aw ar ded dam ag es i n su ch am ou nts had w e been v est ed w i th ori g i nal jur i sdict i on in t his ca se. This, howe ve r , i s a n a ppe l l a t e co urtan d we r e vi e w t he s e da mag e a war ds wi th d ue de f e r e nc e t o the d is c re tio n v e s te d in th e tria l c o u rt. C o a kley v. D a n iels , 8 4 0 S
. W
. 2 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 2 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). For r e a s ons s e t f

ort h a tl e ng t h b y thi s Courti n M itch ell v. A rch iba ld , 97 1 S
. W
. 2d 25, 29

- 30 ( Ten n.C t . A pp . 19 98 ) , d ef er ence t o t he judgm ent of the tri al cou r ton cr edibil i t y determ i nati on s i s a tim e h o n o re d p rin c ip le o f ap p e lla te rev ie w . [ A ] ccording l y , app el l at e cou r t s r ou t i nelydecli ne to secon d-g u e ss a tr i al c ourt ’ s c r e di bi l i t y de t e r mi na t i ons unl e s s the r e i s c onc r e t e , c l e ar , and c onvi nc i ng e v id e n c e to th e co n tra ry . See Bing ha m v. D yersbu rg Fab ri cs C o., I nc. , 56 7 S
. W
. 2d 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 (Te n n . 1 9 7 8 ); Th ompso n v. C resw el lInd us. Supp ly, I nc. , 93 6 S
. W
. 2d 955, 9 5 7 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). The mos tof

t e n c i t e d r e a s on f

orthi s pri nc i pl e c a n b e tr a c e d t o the f a c tthat tr i a l j udg e s , un l i ke a ppe l l a t e j udg e s , ha ve a n o pportuni t y t o o bs e r ve the ma nne ra nd d e m e a n o r o f

th e w itn e s s e s w h ile th e y are tes tif y in g. Se e Bo wm an v . Bo wm an , 83 6 S .W .2 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 6 (T e n n .C t.A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). M itch ell v. A rch iba ld , 9 7 1 S.W
. 2 d 2 5 , 2 9 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). I n a ddi t i on i n c a s e s i nvol vi ng l i a bl e a nd s l a nde r “ the a mountof da mag e s a s s e s s e d d e pe nds on t he de g r e e of

mor a l turpi t ude of

the de f e nda nt ’ s c ondu c t . ” Sa un ders v. Ba xt er , 5 3 Te n n . ( 6 H e is k .) 3 6 9 , 3 8 5 (T e n n . 1 8 7 1 ). Myers v. Pickeri ng Firm, I nc. , 9 5 9 S.W
. 2 d 1 5 2 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). The c ondu c tof

D e f e nda ntPi c ka r d i n thi s c a s e wa s e g r e g i ous . T he tr i a l c ourtha d the o p p o rtu n ity to o b s e rv e th e m a n n e r a n d d e m e a n o r o f th e w itn e s s e s an d in th e f irs t in s ta n c e to ju d ge th e im p a c t o f

th e lib e lo u s p u b lic a tio n s o n P la in tif fs . W h ile th e am o u n ts aw a rd e d b y th e trial ju d ge

### -52-

are h ig h in th is case w e can n o t say that the y are be y o n d the ran ge of r eas o n ab len ess . A cco rdin gl y we wi l l no t s e c ond g ue s s t he de t e r mi na t i on of the tr i a l c ourt i n thi s r e s pe c t . W e c a nnots a y tha tthe tr i al cou r tabu sed it s disc r et i on i n setti ng dam ag es. V. Conc l us i on I n this ca s e w e c ann ot saythat Sam Sp i cerw as a perf ectpo l i ce of

f i cer . There i s ho w ever s c a nta dmi s s i bl e e vi de nc e i n thi s r e c or d t o c a s ta dve r s e r e f l e c t i on upon hi m. T he l a w wi l l no ta l l ow h is r ep u tati o n to b e d estro y ed b y in n u en d o , s u sp icion a n d falseh o o d
. T h e jud gm en t of the tri al co u rt a s t o d e fa mati on i s a f

f i r med
. O n th e m aliciou s p ros ecu ti o n case the ju d gm en t of the tri al co u rtas to the d ef en d an t H o w ard M orr i s i s a f

f i r med
. T he j udg men tof the tr i a l c ourtin r espec tt o c ount s on e a nd thr e e of the i ndi c t men ti s i n a l l r e s pe c t s a f f i r med
. T he j udg men tof t he t r i a l cou r tas t o co unt s t wo a nd f ourof t he indict m ent i s r eversed on the iss ue o f l ack o f prob able cause, this C ou r t f i nd i ng that the d ef

ense of a dvi c e of

c ouns e l i s no ts us t a i ne d b y the r e c or d. S inc e the trial co u rtr en d ered jud gm en t f o r the d ef

en d an ts as to th ese tw o co u n ts o n the b asis t ha tthe pr os e c ut i on of

the c a s e bythe a t t or ne y g e ne r a l e s t a bl i s he d p r oba bl e c a us e , tha tc ourtdi d n ot add r ess the separat e i ssue of m al i ce on the p ar t of def end ants Pi ckard and Th om pso n. O ur r eversal as t o p r ob able c ause l eaves the iss ue o f m al i ce un cl eari n this r ecord. W hil e m al i ce may be i nf err ed f rom lack o f p ro b ab le cau se it m u st b e n o ted that u n d er Rob e r ts v . Fe de ralEx pr e s s Cor

p. , 84 2 S. W
. 2d 246 ( Te nn. 19 92) , ma l i c e i s i ndi vi dua l i z e d a nd s ubj e c t i ve r a the rt han o bject i ve . T he qu est i on of

m al i ce theref

ore mu st be a ddr essed i n t he f i r s ti ns t a nc e bythe tr i a l c ourt , i nc l udi ng w h eth er or n o t m alice is t o b e inferr ed f rom lack o f

p rob ab le cau se u n d er th e facts o f this case
. It i s a l s o we l l t o n ot e tha ta l t houg h d a mag e s f r om ma l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on maybe di f f i c ul tt o s e pa r a t e f

r om da mag e s f

orde fa mati on, s uc h mus t be done a s St a c e Th omps on c a nnotbe he l d l i a bl e f orde fa mati on b u t on lyif

the tri al c o u rtf

ind s h im gu il tyo f

m alice in the m aliciou s p ros ecu ti o n case an d then o n ly f o r su c h d a m a ges as are p ro x im a te ly attrib u ta b le to th e m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n . Th e j ud g m ent o f

the tr i al cou r ti s af

f i r m ed in part , r eversed i n p ar t , and r em and ed f or f urther pr oc e e di ng s i n c onf

or mi t y wi t h thi s op i ni on. Cos t s of t hi s ca us e ar e as s e s s e d t wo- thi r ds a g a i ns tDon Pi c ka r d a nd one - t hi r d a g a i ns tSt a c e Th omps on.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ W IL L I AM B. CA IN, J UDGE