George Zimmerman appears not to be content with being on the criminal docket alone. He is now a civil litigant in a lawsuit filed against NBC Universal Media for an editing error that portrayed him as a racist in coverage of the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. The very first line of the complaint starts out with an accusation of unethical sensationalism” ““NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so to set about the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain.”
In addition to NBC and NBC’s Ron Allen, the lawsuit names as defendants Lilia Rodriguez Luciano (who was later terminated due to her reporting of the case for NBC) and Jeffrey Burnside of Dade County, another journalist who was also fired by NBC.
The second line is no more favorable: ““Their goal was simple: keep their viewers alarmed, and thus always watching, by menacing them with reprehensible series of imaginary and exaggerated racist claims.”
I am not sure if such reports “menace” viewers but it was clearly wrong and clearly harmful to Zimmerman. The network committed a serious error in the
editing of the 911 audiotape. Here is the audiotape:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
The full tape went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Thus, Zimmerman was not the one who raised race and was specifically asked to give Martin’s race by the police. However, NBC spliced together parts of the recording and left the opposite impression — a very serious mistake and lead to added international condemnation. NBC edited the tape to show Zimmerman stating “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his wraistband. And he’s a black male.” It is truly hard to see how a “mistake” like that could occur without malice, but at best it was gross negligence. It certainly, in my view, raises a legitimate defamation claim.
This is one of four such misrepresentations cited in the complaint which is linked below. This includes stating that Zimmerman said “f—ing coons” on the February 26 call when he said “f—ing punks.”
Count one is an omnibus defamation claim. Count two is an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. He is seeking both joint and several liability as well as punitive damages.
Notably, in some jurisdictions, he could also bring a false light claim. However, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the false light claims, leaving defamation as the only option in such cases. The court found that concerns over false light were valid: “(1) it is largely duplicative of defamation, both in the conduct alleged and the interests protected, and creates the potential for confusion because many of its parameters, in contrast to defamation, have yet to be defined; and (2) without many of the First Amendment protections attendant to defamation, it has the potential to chill speech without any appreciable benefit to society.”
There remains the question of the status of George Zimmerman in any defamation action. A status as a public figure or limited public figure would subject him to the higher standard of “actual malice” and the need to show actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth under New York Times v. Sullivan.
The complaint does not concede that Zimmerman is a public figure but it notably accuses the defendant of either actual knowledge or reckless disregard. While higher, there is a plausible basis for such a claim in the case even as a public figure. If Zimmerman tries to sue as an average citizen, he could face the same problem of my former client, Eric Foretich, who was declared a limited public figure due to a brief comment to the media in Foretich v. ABC. Zimmerman’s family made early efforts to frame his image in the media. This is understandable but could be viewed as triggering the higher standard if done with his knowledge or consent. It seems likely that he will be declared either a public figure or limited public figure.
Then there is the novel question of whether Zimmerman falls into a narrow category of a “libel proof” defendant. The complaint states that “[d]ue to the defendants’ journalistic crimes, Zimmerman has been transformed into one of the most hated men in America.” Yet, NBC could argue that his actions and confirmed statements resulted in that status and that, furthermore, he is now so without a good reputation that he is effectively libel proof. If so the court would have to find that Zimmerman’s reputation was already so damaged that he cannot recover more than nominal damages for subsequent defamatory statements. Marcone v. Penthouse Int’l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1079 (3rd Cir. 1985). This is a relatively rare basis for a dismissal and the plaintiff has to be akin to a Charles Manson.
Zimmerman has long denied the allegations and insisted that he was defending himself. Moreover, these incidents occurred early in the controversy. There is no question that the case quickly took on intense racial elements. I have written before that I believe that the case was over-charged and that the media was engaging in highly unprofessional commentary. I do not believe that the defendants could succeed in a libel-proof claims anymore than Zimmerman will be able to escape the status of a limited public figure.
I also believe that the lawsuit has merit, even with the apology of NBC. The story had already spread across the internet and global media. The apology could protect the company from punitive damages, however, depending on how the evidence unfolds. What do you think?
Here is the complaint.
Source: Washington Post
SlingT,
I agree with you and with Malisha.
JT: You must be up late when you write these articles. You dare question Zimmerman’s right to sue these astardBays who promoted the prosecution of him by lying about his statements and twisting them. all on national tv. The local jerks prosecuted him because of this pressure. NBC needs to go off the air and take a breath of fresh air instead of the sewage they inbible.
Juris has done it all over himself again. That was an opinion. Remember that Juris.
Malisha and BK come out with opinions, not testimony. Nor are they planning on being called for jury duty in his trial.
Opinions on whatever are their prerogative at a free speech site.
That you can call them out for proof is one thing, but implying more than that and impugning them is a “bad”, IMO.
Hope you can differentiate and not befoul the air more, by playing lawyer.
Why do I come after you? Because you want to deter others with opinions differing from yours, IMO. A no-no in my world, even if it is Obama who does it.
Hope that met the conditions of civility. 😉
Juris,
Malisha is right. I would disqualify myself from THIS jury b/c I’ve looked at most of the content of the evidence dumps and I’ve made up my mind. imo, GZ is lying sociopath who is guilty of 2nd degree murder – all elements for that charge being available. But I don’t live in Florida, so I’m not a candidate for it anyway.
I’m glad you haven’t been brainwashed by MSM, but neither have we as you passively aggressively suggest. Malisha, Sling, and I have looked at the evidence provided by the prosecution as required by Federal law and ordered by the judge. You might want to check it out and then judge us less harshly.
Nothing related to this case suggests that I would not be an acceptable juror on another trial.
There have been a couple of trials for which I wouldn’t have been a juror. One involved an arson where my aunt survived b/c the fire station was 1/2 block from her apartment and a firefighter took her down the fire escape. Her son and my brother saw evidence of accelerant when they recovered her “stuff”. I was actually called for that jury but they got 12 plus without my having to decline to serve. The defendant was found guilty and is in prison. The other was a neighbor who beat his wife to unrecognizably. I knew him enough to know that he was a misogynous control freak. He gave me the creeps when I ran into him at the post office. He’s in prison serving at least 20 years.
Mike : “The distinction is that were the media ot involved in Zimmerman there never would have been a trial.”
Media involvement to trigger a trial isn’t the problem
The problem is that it took that for the case to get some proper investigation.
I’ve gone through the timelines in great detail.
The geography/maths/physics indicate that Zimmerman has to be lying about his movements – and that he went hunting for Martin.
At the very least, he should be up on manslaughter charges.
Mikes, That was a great post. I’m sure it portrays what was going on here during that time. My wife is embarassed by this but being secure in her sanity, allows me to relate this story. She is a scrapbooker, and unlike NBC, did not edit out this episode in our family life. During the OJ trial we took a trip to Palm Springs and Santa Monica. We met some friends in Palm Springs for a few days and then spent 3 days in Santa Monica. On a Sunday morning we took the kids on a drive through LA. We went down Sunset Blvd., Santa Monica Blvd., thru the UCLA campus, etc. Out of the blue, my very common sense wife, our navigator[this was way before GPS] said, we’re not far from the Bundy address. Our kids were old enough to understand the significance. She said, “let’s drive by.” I said “WTF”, it was Sunday morning and traffic was light. We got to the infamous condo and there were ~3-4 other folks just walking around sort of sheepishly. Well, my wife just marched up and started shooting photos of the murder scene. She was perched on the gate shooting inside where we all knew the bodies were found. Myself and our 2 kids stood back bemused and a bit bewildered. Our Federal probation wife/mother was now an Enquirer papparazzi! We all have rogue, darkness, etc. in us. Her “dark side” is in one of our NUMEROUS family albums. I love the fact she didn’t edit that out…I love the dark side.
Ralph,
Since you bring up your wife and the OJ case. At the time of the case I was a Deputy Director over the Facilities Section of NYC’s homeless shelter system. They were spinning it off into a separate Agency and the Mother Agency didn’t want to lose me. I literally had nothing to do for the entire OJ trial other than sit in the office of another director in a similar position, who had a TV. This took place over about six months while the parent Agency reorganized and found a place for me. I watched the entire trial on TV. At its end I was strongly in favor of OJ being acquitted, not because of his innocence, but because the prosecution was so inept they did’t make a solid case. For instance their timeline was screwed up and Mark Fuhrman was a disastrous witness. When he was acquitted I wasn’t shocked by the acquittal, but by the fact that the jury got it right. As to OJ’s guilt my own theory was that it was all about a coke deal gone bad, which he was fronting, but which his wife was involved in. He was guilty of something, but they simply didn’t prove it. That case spurred my interest in the whole subject of trial by publicity which I think is a detriment to our legal system.
Nick,
Forgive me, I stupidly addressed you as Ralph and apologize deeply for connecting you with him.
“The new suspect photo and the civil suit seemed designed for one thing to me and that’s to create reasonable doubt in the jury pool.”
More unreasonable doubt really 🙂
The argument from the defence is aimed at the emotions.
Even our Prof seems a tad suckered by this.
Somehow the sight of bleeding and puffy nose in full colour is meant to be a slam-dunk justification of shooting.
It distracts from the objective facts that timelines and timestamps of calls put a lie to Zimmerman’s accounts.
He had a wtf scary moment when “the punk”, instead of “always getting away”, walked right by his truck and eyeballed him.
The “Sh*t, he’s running” triggered the hunt instinct. He channelled what Frank Taffe described “He’d had enough and he wasn’t going to take any more”.
He lost it.
He went after Martin into the dark cenrtral pathway area.
.
Then –
After he finished the NEN call, he went searching for Martin and found him 2 minutes later.
Either that or he just stood there for 2 minutes.
In his Walk-through he says that he started for his truck immediately the NEN call ended.
In the NEN he ends the call by changing the agreement to meet at the truck/mailboxes to one of the patrol ringing him to find out where he might be.
It took him 20 seconds to get from there to the ‘attack’ location in the walk-through.
If a jury sees him trying to explain the actual timeline v. his accounts, no amount of blood photos should sway a reasonable jury.
nick,
You’ll get little disagreement about Nancy (dis)Grace from me or most of the posters here. I’d call her a swine but that gives a bad name to pork chops. I quit watching CNN altogether shortly after they hired her. I never thought I’d miss “The News According to Ted Turner” but at least he’d have never hired a National Enquirer reject like her.
Juris, you have gone a long way with a small piece of data, when you conclude that neither I nor BettyKath should ever serve as jurors. I have said about a dozen times on various threads on this very blog that I am writing from the position of a person who could never serve as a juror on this case because I have formed a very firm opinion that Zimmerman is guilty of murder. I SAID THAT because there is room in our legal system for a prospective juror to disqualify himself or herself on the basis of “prejudgment” which would be called “prejudice” and for very good reason.
I have already come to the conclusion that George is guilty. That does not mean that, in another case, I would not serve as a perfectly good unprejudiced juror. I consider your conclusion illogical and peculiar.
Let’s look at what convinced me that George is guilty of Murder-2, so that I would have to disqualify myself from judging him in a criminal trial.
1. HE said that Trayvon Martin was a “real suspicious guy” in the NEN call. He had no rational basis for that belief.
2. HE said “f*cking punks” on that call. No rational basis for that insult.
3. HE got out of his truck and then said his purpose was to find an address!
4. The address would not help anyone because “the suspect” was gone.
5. HE then called Trayvon Martin “the suspect” 18 times in his written statement he made. AND last but not least,
6. His injuries do NOT match the silly story he told about being attacked.
So yes, my mind is made up about Zimmerman. And yes, I would disqualify myself from his jury. But no, what you concluded was not logical and not, in my opinion, appropriate. But I don’t need an apology. I’m not proud of myself for being right all the time; I’m just proud of myself for being smart and tough and damn good-looking.
Thanks, Gene. I don’t follow these trials very much but it has become a national pastime. Nancy Grace..just her face, turns my stomach.
Nick,
Below was my first “guest blog” here, which was on Casey Anthony. Sadly, I think my concerns hold true in the Zimmerman case. The distinction is that were the media ot involved in Zimmerman there never would have been a trial.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/02/should-we-care-about-casey-anthony/
A bit less on Anthony, nick. Most of the coverage there was about the outrageous and biased media coverage provided by the likes of Nancy Grace. I think Zimmerman/Martin got a little more traction because it smelled fishy from the get go with the foot dragging on charging Zimmerman.
Was this blog as abuzz w/ the Casey Anthony trial?
It’s more ‘Zimmerman did falsely profile Trayvon as a person intent on criminal activity’
He referred in the course of the NEN call to “punks” (who always get away), and “f**king goons”. The clear implication is that he considered Martin to be a member of a grouping that he described as punks and goons – Goons being the name for the local gangs.
Being young and black plus wearing a hoodie was part of the profile of the punks/goons.
Black is just part of the profile, and not *the* profile.
It’s a simple as that.
.
Now
What’s all this about Zimmermans team submitting, as material for this case against NBC, a recording of the NEN call in which Zimmerman saying “F**king goons” has been edited out?
I wish Mike A. would weigh in on this.
Mespo,
There is nothing in the complaint that says what law applies. But does Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) address this?
“Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. But if the district court determines that the plaintiff’s action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed,[7] in the absence of some other bar to the suit.[8]”
Considering the length of time it takes for trial preparation and the relevance of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, isn’t it likely that Zimmerman’s criminal trial will precede the civil trial?
I have been frequently the Frederick Leatherman blog and some of my comments are derived from his postings. I don’t stick around that blog much anymore b/c of the rantings of some of the posters, but Leatherman, and occasionally a poster, have some thoughts worth considering.
Zimmerman’s story has some real problems with it, but I’m more interested in what the forensics will show in final presentation. Specifically I’m interested in what the final results prosecution will use regarding powder burns. If Martin was far enough away from Zimmerman not to get powder burns, it certainly crimps the self-defense angle.
**********
mespo,
I wonder about that as well, but I think it’s a moot point because like the Prof I think he’s likely to be found a limited public figure due in no small part to the image control efforts by his family and council. I don’t think he’ll get anything from the network. The new suspect photo and the civil suit seemed designed for one thing to me and that’s to create reasonable doubt in the jury pool.
“The new suspect photo and the civil suit seemed designed for one thing to me and that’s to create reasonable doubt in the jury pool.”
Gene,
That’s the ticket.
bettykath,
“Zimmerman did falsely profile Trayvon as young Black intent on criminal activity. The true part: Trayvon was a young Black man. The false part: Trayvon was intent on criminal activity. Whether or not Zimmerman is racist, Trayvon being Black was a key part of the profile.”
“Trayvon WAS profiled and the fact that he was Black was an important part of the profile.”
You sure do claim to know a lot about Zimmerman’s mental state. Maybe you could serve as a key witness for the prosecution? Oh wait, there is something called the rules of evidence that generally require a witness to have personal knowledge of what he/she is testifying to.
For the sake of the system, you and Malisha should be forever forgiven of your civic duty to serve as jurors.
I, for one, have not been brainwashed by the media (or my own biases) and will reserve judgment until all of the facts come out.
When everybody is ´”wrong”, then whom do we blame? Florida for its gun’totin’ SYG laws? Trayvon for not being white? NBC for exercising the media prerogative to “pump” a story? George Z for killing a boy? Us for creating this EFFing mess?
I’d say it was the loose cannon who should not have pursued when told NOT to do so by the NEN, and who pulled his gun and shot. In a hurry he was too.
But maybe we should also hang our heads too. We’ll be doing “life” as long as we keep this mess.
Hello friends,
The first thing that leaps out, how do we know the impact this segment had upon Mr. Zimmerman and the case? How does one quantify this exposure?
We are being asked to quantify damages based on a future potential.
I don’t start my world view about Zimmerman based on NBC and even with the adjusted audio, which was also available on many other networks, I haven’t changed my initial impressions of his actions and mental state before killing Trayvon Martin.
The jury would have to decide that NBC was in some way responsible by guessing at how the audience interpreted their segment of course, but not being a lawyer, that opening comment about WHY NBC did this is likely not something a lawyer could prove to me. Unless they exposed communications where someone suggested, even if subconsciously, to portray him as a racist, the way we KNOW that FoxNews does about leaning on the news, then they have a case. Otherwise, as a juror, I’d be very quick to say, “nope, didn’t have an effect upon your reputation. Your reputation is based on your deeds themselves”
Thanks for background though on ‘limited public figure’ and tying this together for us.
As sympathetic to the victim Martin’s position as I am — this guy probably has a good case against MSNBC.