Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, April 26, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Imagine being hauled into court, led to the witness stand, being sworn in and facing an aggressive, adversarial attorney.
“Sir, please tell the court what you have done wrong.”
Say what? What have I done wrong? What’s he talking about? I haven’t done anything wrong.
“Sir, we are waiting. Please list all the things you have done wrong — and while you’re at it, give us the evidence.”
You’re in a courtroom, not standing before God for a final accounting.
The attorney grows impatient. “C’mon, spill your guts.”
Such a scenario might seem preposterous in our courts system, where a person is accused of wrongdoing only when there is sufficient evidence to pursue the matter.
But this unthinkable scenario roughly reflects an issue before the Nevada Supreme Court: Should a journalist who is being targeted in a smear campaign have to defend herself even if there is no evidence that she’s done something wrong?
At issue is a case involving Jeff Guinn, the son of the late-Gov. Kenny Guinn, who is being sued by investors over financial dealings. The story has been aggressively reported by Dana Gentry, executive producer of “Face to Face With Jon Ralston,” a public affairs TV show produced under the auspices of this newspaper. Guinn’s attorneys are requesting documents from Gentry to prove that her reporting was corrupted because she has been influenced with personal favors to pursue the story.
Those attorneys haven’t presented any evidence of their own to make that case. So the playful scenario at the beginning of this editorial is in fact playing out. This is the perfect example of begging the question, to make a statement based on a false premise, such as, “Sir, when did you stop beating your wife?”
Properly, and because Guinn’s attorneys have provided no evidence to support their claims, District Judge Allan Earl last year rejected their subpoena to compel Gentry to turn over this unidentified evidence that they claim exists.
But rather than put up or shut up, the attorneys have appealed to the state Supreme Court. Guinn’s attorneys want nothing less than to impede the news-gathering process by being allowed to spuriously insinuate that a journalist is guilty of impropriety, without providing evidence to support their claim.
In his brief, Gentry’s attorney, Don Campbell, wrote that if the Supreme Court were to allow Guinn’s attorneys to bully Gentry “in absence of any evidence supporting a demonstrable claim of need, it would impose an enormous disincentive upon journalists to vigorously pursue stories in their efforts to further public interest and debate of controversial subjects.”
Indeed, if the court caves to Guinn’s attorneys, it will be a gross overreach and violation of the Nevada shield law, which among other things protects reporters from having to disclose the sources of their information. (And, in fact, Guinn’s attorneys have not asked for a single correction or retraction involving Gentry’s reporting on their client’s case.)
Guinn’s attorneys had other opportunities to make their case, including accepting Judge Earl’s invitation to prove to him, in a private evidentiary hearing, that the information they sought was an absolute necessity. But they didn’t. And why not?
“The answer to this question is as simple as it is damning: The Petitioners had no evidence to present because their charges of journalistic corruption on the part of Ms. Gentry were fabricated,” Campbell wrote.
Instead, in their effort to grasp at straws, the attorneys are attempting to tamper with the shield law, an inappropriate target in their flailing efforts to intimidate a journalist.
The Supreme Court should have little problem dispatching this nuisance piece of legal hijinks. Send the attorneys back to District Court, where they should produce whatever evidence they think they have to suggest Gentry’s reporting was tainted. Lacking it, they need to respect the Fourth Estate, even if they are uncomfortable with reporting that is both aggressive and accurate.
Gov. Guinn must be so proud as he looks down on his son.
This is a perfect example why our legal system needs to be reformed.
When Guinn's attorneys lose this case they should be held responsible for all costs involved including the paying of Gentry's attorney bills.
In America today you can sue someone for any reason, even without facts or evidence. It is time that those doing the suing start paying the price when they lose their cases.
While this process is laughable, it's played out daily in our legal system. What the plaintiff doesn't know, they go fishing for in "discovery". Loser pays would nice.
IT ALL COMES WITH THE TERRITORY
No matter what occupation we are in, there are those who are dedicated in preserving the sanctity and professional state of their chosen field. You see a person like this, without doubt, there rests on this individual an open target for anyone else to take relentless "pot shots". Journalists and reporters are not an exception to this reality and unwritten rule.
When I was employed by the prison system as an officer, I was shocked at the ineptness in the agencies "Visitation Room". At this point, when I was first assigned to this post, it was a virtual "free for all". Inmates and visitors openly engaged in sexual activity and drug trafficking. It was the norm in daily operations. What were the manager and assigned staff there doing? They were kicked back in their cushy positions. I demanded immediate change and that as officers, "we take back absolute control". This was met with great resistance. So, strategically, I waited for the right time to, "drop the hammer" on this corruption.
Less than a month later my supervisor took an extended vacation. Guess who, by seniority rights took over as the acting visitor room supervisor? That's right. Me. The first day, out of approximately forty-five visits; I terminated, for cause, over twenty visits. Within the first week, over eighty visits were terminated indefinitely pending investigation and disciplinary action. The illicit sex and flow of drugs came to grinding halt. However, as these activities stopped, a tremendous surge of complaints had overwhelmed management. The frivolous complaints, grievances, and yes, even law suits got me removed from the visiting room. However, this was only temporary. I would return, smarter, and even more effective.
Those days were hell. But, when I was faced with unethical setbacks, I took the time to regroup and revitalize myself. On each return to the war, I became progressively a more dangerous weapon to illicit activities and staff corruption.
See it all through to the end, Dana. You can do it!!! In our system justice will sooner or later prevail to those who never give into the powerful forces of our enemies. And, oh my God are they out there in droves. Good luck to you, Dana. In private thought, I'll be pulling for you!!!
John Edwards may be available in a couple of weeks. Then again, maybe not.
The shield law needs to be repealed. the journalists all need to prove that they are telling the truth. if they cannot substantiate what they print they need to be subject to fines and imprisonment like any other criminal.
I have no idea who is right or wrong in this instance but I do know the law does not protect blatant falsehoods. Hiding behind the "shield" law will not protect wrong doing by "professional" journalists. Ask John L. Smith.