Opinion ID: 2025227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: contents of post-report newspaper articles

Text: On December 21, 1978, the day following the release of the grand jury report, CN published four articles relating to the burglary ring, two of which articles appeared on the front page and are directly in issue here as being allegedly libelous. One such allegedly libelous article (under Bob Wilson's by-line) is entitled, Grand Jury Describes Police Burglary Setup. It contains pictures of plaintiff and several other officers above the caption, Current Officers Implicated in Report. Beneath the caption is the statement, Four current law officers  Arnold Yanders, Robert Testa, Michael Reed and Kenneth Cox  were named by grand jury witnesses as joining in at least one or a few of the reported break-ins by policemen. The article itself states that the grand jury's investigation determined that up to 10 police officers were involved in the break-ins. The article also states, The `usual practice', according to the grand jury testimony of a former policeman identified as one of the ringleaders, was to split whatever was taken among the patrolmen on the scene. The article also states that certain officers had admitted involvement in certain burglaries, and the article further states, [The witnesses] identified other officers involved too. They included    Patrolman Mike Reed   . Later the article states, Lieutenant Edwin McGee also testified about the Harding's incident, saying he came on the scene and found Hill, Roland, Massey and Officer Mike Reed inside but without their flashlights turned on. The other December 21 article (containing no by-line but admittedly contributed to by Carl Young) is entitled, 3 Deny Roles in Burglaries, refers to Reed as one of the officers implicated and quotes him as denying any involvement. On December 22 a follow-up article by Bob Wilson was published, again mentioning plaintiff as one of the officers implicated. This article focuses on the possibility of criminal or disciplinary charges against the officers and is entitled, Next Move Weighed in Burglary Ring Case. Plaintiff did not base any cause of action on this article but apparently introduced it as evidence that in publishing other articles Wilson and CN acted with malice. A December 23, 1978, allegedly libelous article by Bob Wilson also discusses the possible action against the officers and again lists Mike Reed as one of the current officers named as participants in one or more incidents. On March 6, 1979, CN published another allegedly libelous article written by then-staff writer Carl Young. This article is entitled, Policemen Face Choice: Take Lie Detector Tests or be Fired. The article does not mention particular officers by name but states that the grand jury    reported that up to 10 police officers    were involved in break-ins at local service stations and stores in 1970-71. The article goes on to state that the report said 3 of the officers were still on the Danville police force. The assertion either that three current officers had been implicated in a burglary ring or that three current officers had been implicated in at least one of the break-ins is again made in an allegedly libelous article written by Carl Young, appearing on March 10, 1979, and in two allegedly libelous articles appearing on March 28, 1979, and March 29, 1979, respectively, neither of which contains a by-line. On April 6, 1979, CN published an article by Carl Young summarizing the results of the lie detector tests. The article states in part: Officers Mike Reed and Joseph Miller took the tests and passed, [Mayor David] Palmer said. No disciplinary action will be taken against them, he said. `Although he (Reed) was named in the grand jury report, we could find absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on his part,' Palmer said. He said there was `absolutely' no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Miller. Plaintiff wanted this article admitted on the question of malice, but defendants objected to the article on relevance grounds and it was excluded. CN published several articles covering the progress of the instant libel action. Plaintiff sought to have these articles admitted as indicating prior malice, but these articles were refused as irrelevant.