Vermont Supreme Court Building Photo: Roger Crowley/VTDigger
The Vermont Supreme Court has sided with a Northeast Kingdom newspaper, agreeing the recovery of its costs in defending itself against a lawsuit eventually found meritless should not be limited to its insurance deductible.
If a lower court ruling were allowed to stand limiting such cost-recovery efforts, the high court stated in its ruling Friday, there would be little to discourage people from bringing such lawsuits in retaliation against those exercising their free speech rights.
“This deterrent effect on plaintiff has no relationship to who paid a defendant’s attorney’s fees,” Chief Justice Paul Reiber wrote in the court’s unanimous ruling.
Matthew Byrne, a Burlington attorney with the firm Gravel & Shea and representing the Chronicle of Barton newspaper, said Friday that the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling is the first published opinion by the high court upholding the state’s “anti-SLAPP” law.
“The court’s ruling reinforces important First Amendment rights and ensures that newspapers can continue to play their essential role in our democracy,” Byrne said.
“When reporters do careful work, like the Chronicle did here,” the attorney added, “the Supreme Court will stop attempts to silence that reporting.”
SLAPP is an acronym standing for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” That statute, which went into effect in 2005, allows defendants in a free speech case to file a special motion to strike a lawsuit, or parts of the action.
The statute aims to protect several forms of expression, referencing “any written or oral statement concerning an issue of public interest made in a public forum or a place open to the public,” and allows for the recovery of defense costs.
The case arises over legal action brought by Garrett Cornelius who contended the Chronicle in Barton should not have run articles about him and his brother, including one where information from a law enforcement bulletin terming the two a “possible threat.”
Cornelius’ claims were eventually thrown out by an Orleans County trial court judge. Byrne, the attorney for the newspaper, which bills itself as the “The weekly journal of Orleans County,” argued that the $5,000 the publication had been awarded in defending against the action fell short of the actual cost.
As a result, the newspaper appealed that lower court decision, seeking the over $30,000 spent in defending against the lawsuit brought by Cornelius.
At the lower court, a judge ruled that the newspaper was entitled only to the amount of its litigation-insurance deductible, $5,000, which is what it paid out of pocket.
“The plain language of the statute does not support this construction. The statute contains no provision limiting the recovery of attorney’s fees to those amounts that were incurred directly by the defendant as opposed to by a third party,” Reiber wrote in the high court’s ruling issued Friday.
“Moreover, this construction is at odds with the remedial purpose of the statute,” the chief justice wrote. “The purpose of the statute is ‘to prevent retaliatory litigation against citizens exercising their right to free speech and their right to petition the government on matters of public interest.’”
At one point, the newspaper’s legal bills totaled more than $34,000, according to court records.
The high court did point out in a footnote to its decision that at one point the trial court judge denied fees on the basis that the newspaper was not a “natural person,” but then reversed that decision.
“We agree that the statute covers activity by entities, such as newspapers, as well as individuals,” the footnote to the Vermont Supreme Court ruling stated.
The high court has sent the case back to the Orleans County court for hearings to determine what those legal fees and defense costs are now.
In issuing its ruling Friday regarding the attorney fees and defense costs, the high court also rejected a bid by Cornelius to revive his claims against the newspaper in the lawsuit.
Cornelius represented himself in the case. He could not be reached Friday for comment.
In arguments to the Vermont Supreme Court in July, Cornelius cited damage to his “character” and “reputation” as a result of the publication of the articles. “It’s so important to hold the media to some standard of proof in reporting,” he said to the justices.
Cornelius, a Newport resident, argued in court filings that his case should be allowed to proceed, in part, so he can find out how the newspaper obtained the “confidential” police bulletin it cited in its front-page article under the headline “Cornelius brothers deemed a possible threat.”
The bulletin stated, in part, “Both brothers have lengthy criminal involvements and are currently involved in active and ongoing investigations involving unlawful trespass, violation of court orders, and violation of several restraining orders.”
It added, “although no direct threats to law enforcement have been made, their behavior has become increasingly violent, erratic and unpredictable. Both have a history of being argumentative with police during previous interactions and have expressed extreme animosity toward law enforcement.”
The newspaper article also mentioned various run-ins with the law the brothers had over time, stating that in July 2014 Christian Cornelius killed Isaac Hunt of Island Pond, slashing his leg with knife.
“Mr. Cornelius said Mr. Hunt was breaking into his house and assaulting his brother with a shovel at the time,” the article stated. “Following a long investigation, then State’s Attorney Alan Franklin concluded that Mr. Cornelius’ actions were justified and no charges were brought.”
Garrett Cornelius, in his lawsuit, also took issue with an article published Nov. 2, 2016. It dealt with his arraignment in court on a charge of aiding in the commission of a felony.
“Throughout the court proceedings, Mr. Cornelius was loud and combative and offered verbal expletives to just about any officer of the court tasked with handling his case,” the article stated. “As he was being led down the stairs, Mr. Cornelius directed one last personalized curse at Newport Patrolman Royce Lancaster, who appeared to shrug it off.”
The Vermont Supreme Court, in its ruling Friday, agreed with the lower court’s ruling throwing out Cornelius’ objections to the articles.
“We conclude that the articles in this case were exercises of free speech and connected to a public issue because they concerned public safety, law enforcement activity, possible criminal behavior, and the reporting of arrests,” Reiber wrote in the ruling.
“Although plaintiff may disagree with the reporter’s characterization of plaintiff’s behavior,” the ruling also stated, “the statements made by the reporter, based on personal observations and reflecting primarily the reporter’s perceptions and opinions, were not devoid of a reasonable basis.”
Read the story on VTDigger here: Orleans County newspaper prevails as high court upholds ‘anti-SLAPP’ law.