I found this blog on a record payment in a libel lawsuit in Terre-Haute Indiana in which the Deputy Sheriff sued the local paper, the Terre-Haute Tribune-Star. Hard to understand how the truth in this case was not a defense, perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the trial was before a jury.

The scenario is disturbing. A deputy sheriff sues the Terre Haute Tribune-Star for libel because it published a sworn citizen's complaint against him. After four years of preliminary legal wrangling, an emotional trial ensues. Without regard to time-honored judicial precedent or the expressed purpose of the First Amendment, the jurors find in favor of the deputy sheriff and award him $1.5 million in damages - one of the highest defamation judgments in Indiana history.

How could this happen in a judicial process that is suppose to separate legitimate libel litigation from purely angry complaints by public officials that don't like what the press prints about them? [Original Blog by Michael Silence]