(La Porte County, IN) - A judge on Thursday reversed his decision a week after ordering a new trial in the defamation of character civil case between La Porte County officials.
Stephens R. Bowers, a special judge from Elkhart County presiding over the case, rescinded his September 26th order for a new trial in the case between La Porte County Auditor Tim Stabosz and former La Porte County Government attorney Shaw Friedman.
In his ruling, Bowers agreed with a motion challenging the order filed Wednesday by Andrew Jones, an attorney from South Bend representing Stabosz, who was sued by Friedman in 2021 for defamation of character. On June 28th, a La Porte Circuit Court jury ruled in favor of Stabosz in the defamation case.
Bowers ordered a new trial at the request of Friedman. His attorney, William Jonas of South Bend argued there should be a new trial because the jurors’ decision was based on incorrect information given to them by the judge about the state’s defamation law.
In his latest ruling, Bowers said his order came three days after a 30 day state mandated deadline expired for him to decide whether Friedman should be granted a new trial.
Jones said he was not surprised by the judge’s reversal, saying the deadline under state trial law is crystal clear.
“The jury’s verdict stands as it should,” he said.
Jonas, though, quickly filed a motion asking the judge to reinstate his order for a new trial. He said grounds for a new trial were already established by the judge in his previous order and his client would be denied his right to a fair courtroom proceeding just because the judge missed the deadline.
“Mr. Friedman didn’t do anything wrong. Mr. Friedman filed everything on time,” he said.
Specifically, Jonas said the jury was not properly instructed on what to consider in reaching its decision because they were not given information on what constitutes “regardless disregard” of the truth as defined in state defamation law. He said the information was stricken by the judge from his instructions to the jurors before they began deliberating.
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 Stabosz failed to prove a number of his claims during the trial and there’s evidence to show he acted with malice for over three years to damage “the good name and reputation of my client.”
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.
Jones 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 to the jury during closing arguments.
“The jury fully understood the underlying law of this case, and any suggestion otherwise is wrong,” he said.
If he has to, Jonas said he will go to the Indiana Court of Appeals on behalf of client with his request for a new trial.
“We think it’s important to look at the substance and attempt to reach the just result,” he said.
