Libel lawsuit against John Grisham headed to 10th U.S. Circuit Court

Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City), Oct 17, 2008 by Marie Price

An Oklahoma federal judge's dismissal of a libel lawsuit against best-selling author John Grisham and other writers is on its way to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Grisham's The Innocent Man deals with the 1982 murder of Debra Sue Carter and the convictions and subsequent DNA exonerations of Dennis Fritz and the late Ron Williamson. Fritz, who is also a defendant in the case, wrote his own account in Journey Toward Justice.

Fritz served almost a dozen years of a life sentence in prison and Williamson was for a time on death row, at one point coming within four days of execution.

The appeal was filed by former Pontotoc County District Attorney Bill Peterson, former Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation agent Gary Rogers and retired state criminalist Melvin Hett.

The three brought claims of civil conspiracy, defamation, false light publicity and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Grisham, Fritz and Robert Mayer, whose books criticize the way the three plaintiffs prosecuted and investigated the cases.

Mayer is the author of The Dreams of Ada, about the prosecution of two men for the 1984 murder of Denice Haraway.

Peterson, Rogers and Hett alleged that the three writers engaged in a conspiracy when the books by Grisham and Fritz, and a reissue of Mayer's book, were all published in October 2006.

The plaintiffs also detailed statements in the books that they said were false and aimed at injuring their careers and reputations.

In his September dismissal opinion, U.S. District Judge Ronald White treated the books as political speech, which enjoys a high level of protection under the First Amendment.

White said the wrongful convictions of Fritz and Williamson must be discussed "openly and with great vigor."

"In both cases, where life and liberty are at stake, the constitutional commitment to free and open political debate and the chilling effect of litigation decisively outweigh any potential harm caused by caustic statements critical of government officials," the judge said.

White concluded that the books were substantially true, and that individually challenged statements in them were not libel per se when read in context, and also turned down the plaintiffs' other claims.