- Associated Press - Friday, June 29, 2018

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) - The former Democratic leader of the Kentucky Senate does not have to pay his Republican successor a $200,000 defamation judgment after a state Appeals Court ruled a TV ad he ran in 2014 was accurate and protected by the First Amendment.

R.J. Palmer lost to Republican Sen. Ralph Alvarado in the 2014 election. A week before voters went to the polls, Palmer paid for a TV ad that used courtroom footage to imply Alvarado, a medical doctor, was “getting rich off addiction.” The ad showed a judge lamenting how Alvarado had prescribed $3,000 worth of oxycodone to a criminal defendant.

“Oh my Lord,” the judge said after the defendant told her Alvarado had supplied the drugs.

But the footage had been altered. The judge had said “oh my Lord” at the beginning of the conversation, not directly after the defendant said Alvarado’s name. Also, Alvarado said the defendant had a valid prescription. Alvarado sued for defamation and in 2016 a jury unanimously ordered Palmer to pay him $200,000 in damages.

But Appeals Court judges Allison Jones, Joy Kramer and Irv Maze ruled that “merely rearranging or splicing the language in the ad does not constitute falsity.”



“After watching the recorded hearing and then the commercial, it is clear without a doubt that the ‘gist’ of the hearing is the same as what was conveyed in the ad,” the judges wrote. “The judge at the hearing clearly expressed her displeasure with Dr. Alvarado and the ad accurately reflected this.”

The judges ruled the ad is “close” to portraying Alvarado in a false light, but said it is “within the bounds of a legitimate political purpose” and uses “the type of language that is allowed in robust political debate.”

Alvarado said Friday he would ask the state Supreme Court to restore the $200,000 judgment. He said he was surprised the judges would overturn a unanimous jury verdict in a civil case, which unlike criminal cases do not require a unanimous vote.

“My reputation has been damaged,” Alvarado said. “We think their conclusion is erroneous. It’s wrong. And we plan on appealing it to the Supreme Court.”

The state Supreme Court could hear the case or decline and let the Appeals Court ruling stand.

Palmer declined to comment through his attorney, Barry Miller. But Miller said Palmer was “gratified” with the ruling. He noted the court did not take lightly overturning a unanimous jury verdict. But Miller said a judge should never have allowed the case to go to trial.

“The jury never should have had the burden of making this decision,” Miller said.

The lawsuit has been ongoing for nearly four years. Alvarado initially sued Palmer and his political consultant, Dale Emmons. Emmons settled the case and sent Alvarado a written apology. Palmer did not settle, and the case went to trial. At the time, Alvarado said the verdict was a “vindication” and hoped it would send a message to future candidates to “consider the kind of words and ads they run on others.”

Alvarado is finishing his first term and is running for re-election in November. His opponent is Democrat Denise Gray, a public school teacher.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide