(La Porte County, IN) - A new trial has been ordered in the defamation of character civil case between two La Porte County officials.
Special Judge Stephens Bowers from Elkhart County, who presided over the trial in La Porte Circuit Court, ruled the jury was not given accurate information to consider when determining whether La Porte County Auditor Tim Stabosz violated Indiana’s defamation law.
On June 28th, the jury ruled in favor of Stabosz.
In 2021, Stabosz was sued by Shaw Friedman, the attorney for the La Porte County Commissioners at the time he alleged Stabosz committed slander in his series of claims made about him verbally in public and in posts on social media.
The jury’s verdict on June 28th was lifted by the judge in his ruling on September 26th. The judge agreed with one of the points made in Friedman’s motion to correct errors in his request for a new trial.
Friedman’s attorney, William Jonas of South Bend, said the jury was not given specific information on what constitutes “regardless disregard” of the truth as defined in the state’s defamation law to review in deciding the case. He said the information was stricken by the judge from his instructions to the jury on what to consider during its deliberations.
As a result, Jonas said the jury was under the “erroneous impression” that Stabosz could not be held liable as long as he simply believed everything he claimed against his client. Jonas said not only did Stabosz fail to present sufficient evidence that he actually believed a number of his claims, but there’s evidence to show he acted with malice for over three years to damage “the good name and reputation of my client.”
“You can’t make something up and claim you believe it and exonerate yourself from liability for defamation,” he said.
At the time, Stabosz and Friedman were political opponents. Stabosz alleged Friedman ran La Porte County government behind the scenes by gaining control of key elected officials in their decision making. Friedman has consistently denied those claims.
Stabosz said his claims about Friedman were based on sufficient evidence that included testimony from people called to the stand in his defense. His attorney Andrew Jones, also of South Bend, disagreed the judge made a mistake in his instructions to the jury. He said the plaintiff was given the opportunity to argue the point of reckless disregard of the truth during closing arguments before the jury, which was sufficient.
“The jury fully understood the underlying law of this case, and any suggestion otherwise is wrong,” he said.
Jones also said the judge lacks authority to order a new trial because his ruling came five days after a 30 day state mandated deadline for him to make a decision on the motion. Once the deadline passes, Jones said the motion is automatically denied and the jury’s decision stands.
“The judge’s ruling has no legal effect,” he said.
He said the deadline applies in all cases involving motions to correct errors. Jonas agreed there is a 30 day deadline. However, Jonas said the law also contains a provision, which allows Stabosz to challenge the judge’s decision before the Indiana Court of Appeals.
“I disagree with Mr. Jones’ interpretation of the law,” he said.
Stabosz said he’ll consult with his attorney before deciding whether to appeal.
