SAMM, v GREAT DANE
http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/08269904.pds.html
To demonstrate an action for defamation, a plaintiff must show a communication with four elements: (1) defamatory imputation; (2) malice; (3) publication; and (4) damages. Van Eaton v. Fink (1998) Ind.App., 697 N.E.2d 490, 494, reh'g denied.
Defamation is a tort action. See Long v. Durnil (1998) Ind.App., 697 N.E.2d 100, 105 (observing that United States Supreme Court has held that defamation is a tort actionable under the laws of most states but is not a constitutional deprivation)

http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03080005.jsk.html
Therefore, we hold that because these statements were pertinent and made in the course of litigation, they are covered by the privilege.
With respect to remarks Carter made to the press, we are guided by Foster v. Pearcy, 270 Ind. 533, 387 N.E.2d 446 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 960 (1980), in which absolute immunity was applied to alleged defamatory statements made by a prosecuting attorney. In Foster, the plaintiff brought a libel suit against the Marion County Prosecuting Attorney and a deputy prosecutor based upon remarks the deputy prosecutor made to a newspaper reporter concerning a criminal investigation. The court held that local prosecutors enjoyed the same absolute immunity as that protecting the Attorney General of Indiana for statements made in carrying out their official actions.





IC 34-7-7-5
Sec. 5. It is a defense in a civil action against a person that the act or omission complained of is:
(1) an act or omission of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana in connection with a public issue; and
(2) an act or omission taken in good faith and with a reasonable basis in law and fact.
As added by P.L.114-1998, SEC.7.


IC 34-15-3-1
Applicability of chapter
Sec. 1. (a) This chapter applies to a suit brought for:
(1) publishing;
(2) speaking;
(3) uttering; or
(4) conveying by words, acts, or in any other manner;
a libel or slander by any radio or television station or company in Indiana.
(b) Section 3 of this chapter does not apply to a case of libel or slander against a candidate for a public office in Indiana, unless the retraction of the charge is made in an audible or visible manner at least three (3) days before the election.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.10.

IC 34-15-3-2
Service of notice
Sec. 2. At least three (3) days before filing a complaint in a suit described in section 1 of this chapter, the aggrieved party shall serve notice:
(1) in writing;
(2) on the manager of the radio or television station;
(3) at the principal office of the radio or television station; and
(4) that specifies the words or acts that the aggrieved party alleges to be false and defamatory.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.10.

IC 34-15-3-3
Retraction mitigates damages
Sec. 3. The plaintiff in a suit described in section 1 of this chapter may recover only actual damages if it appears, upon trial of the action, that:
(1) the words or acts were conveyed and broadcast in good faith;
(2) the falsity of the words or acts was due to mistake or misapprehension of the facts; and
(3) a full and fair retraction of any words or acts alleged to be erroneous was conveyed or broadcast:
(A) on a regular program of the radio or television company;
(B) within ten (10) days after the mistake or misapprehension was brought to the knowledge of the manager; and
(C) at approximately the same time and by the same sending power so as to be as visible and audible as the original acts or words complained of.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.10.

volokh:
Very similar — but no good humor.

It would be tempting to likewise label Indiana The Whoredom State — it's the only state that mentions a derivative of the word "whore" in its statutes — but that would be unfair. See Indiana Code 34-15-5-1, "Every charge of incest, homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, adultery, or whoredom falsely made against any person is actionable in the same manner as in the case of slanderous words charging a felony."
[Eugene Volokh, December 14, 2004 at 12:25pm] Possible Trackbacks
Delaware, the Polemicist State:

Reader Fritz

hypo for exam:
outline of defamation claim.

count one
parties are pete plaintiff and channel 6, 'station.'

jurisdiction and venue are here. jurisdictional grounds include 42 usc 1983.

This is a case about defamation, in which station published false statements about pete that destroyed his reputation and interfered in his ability to get a fair trial.

station said pete had been convicted of dealing drugs. that wasn't true.
station said he was a convicted felon. that wasn't true.
station said he'd tried to hide his past. that wasn't true.
station said he was accused of fondling three girls. that wasn't true.

station correctly reported that pete had been accused of trying to drag a child into a car.
it is correct that pete had been accused, and no defamation claim is raised about this statement.
the child has now retracted the claim.
there was no car and no dragging.

station acted with reckless disregard for the truth. this is a jury question.
station published the story the same day it was filmed, without checking the story for accuracy.

station had been told that there was no car.

pete believes that the story has damaged his reputation.
pete is an election lawyer, specializing in cases about campaign speech.
all of his cases involve the integrity of the elections process.
he has cultivated a reputation for honesty and integrity.
he has been known as someone who takes cases based on principle rather than
being a hired gun working for money.
he does not make a net income from his law practice, and is indigent. he regards the law as a calling and a vocation.
that reputation is now irreparably ruined.
he feels he can no longer be effective in representing his clients in indianapolis.
he also believes that he cannot seek employment which involve public contact.
prior to the incident, he had been seeking employment as a substitute waiter at the unicorn club, a desk clerk at the works, a bathhouse on north keystone,and to get back his old job as a courier for indy express. he stopped seeking these jobs because
his damaged reputation would reflect badly on his employers.

the story damaged not only pete's reputation, but that of the legal profession.
the story emphasized pete's status as a lawyer. as officers of the court,
lawyers are held to a high standard of ethical conduct.

after the publication of the story, pete feared for his safety, and has been staying at an undisclosed location. he has been warned that he is at risk of his house being burned down and he being assaulted again.

after publication of the story, his old friends who knew him well were supportive,
but his newer friends who knew him less well were shocked and have shunned him, asking him not to come to their homes or their public events. this withdrawal of social contact resulted in depression and anxiety such that for the rest of the year 2004 he has been unable to work and unable to effectively participate in his own defense.
the defamatory story is not the sole cause of pete's depression. he was diagnosed with major depression three years ago when the city tore down his house and garage towed away his cars and sued him 50 times. the underlying cause of his depression stems from childhood abuse, and from difficulties related to his autistic personality.

he has suffered mental anguish. he has made some attempts to seek mental health treatment, but, being indigent, he cannot afford private help, and has been unable to
handle the paperwork and scheduling involved in getting mental health care via wishard.

pete is an idiot savant. he was a national merit scholar, graduated from college with a 4.0, made deans list in law school, has a post-doctoral masters degree, interned at a state supreme court,and does cutting edge free speech litigation that has been covered in academic journals and made the front page of indiana lawyer.
but he can't hold a job or maintain relationships, has trouble remembering court dates, has very limited social skills, and is organizationally challenged. At his work at Caito Foods and later in jail he was known as Rainman, after the idiot savant played by dustin hoffman (does this add anything?)

Pete is a public figure, and the story discussed a matter of public concern.

The standard for defamation cases involving public figures is reckless disregard for the truth.

The Indiana Constitution article I section 9 states:

The station is entitled to freedom of the press. Reckless publication of defamatory falsehoods are abuse of the right. Although the abuse clause does not modify the first clause, Indiana courts have found that the intent of the drafters was to preserve defamation actions.

The reason pete is a public figure is that he has sought elective office.
He held an appointed position in the O'Bannon adminstration on the Indiana trails Advisory Board.
He has held appointed positions on advisory boards in Delaware, Colorado and Missouri. He is a past chair and vice-chair of the Libertarian Party if Missouri.

In 1996 he won the republican primary for center township advisory board. In 1998,
he ran for county clerk. In 2000, he ran for judge, and received 28,000 votes.

He would not have been eligible to run for any of these ofices if he had been a convicted felon as the station claimed. By running for office, he reasonably expected that his past would be at issue. Therefor it cannot be said that he tried to hide his past. His past includes that he changed his name as a minor, and that at 19 drug charges were filed but dismissed.

Currently his focus is on defending the charges against him,and then defending an attorney disciplinary commission complaint against him.
Once this is complete, he intends to leave the state and start fresh somewhere new, because of the irreparable harm done to his reputation here by the station.

Count II
Defamation per se.
Station said he was a convicted felon. Defamation per se.
Station accused him of fondling, a crime of moral turpitude, where there was no such accusation in the case. Defamation per se.

Count III
The station conspired with an assistant prosecutor to poison the jury pool against pete, interfering in his civil right to a fair trial. * or did they rely solely on public records? *
The prosecutor, with reason to know that pete had been held under unconstitutional conditions, made false defamatory statements in reckless disregard for the truth,
which were then republished by the station.
The prosecutor is not named in this action due to immunity doctrines which insulate her unethical conduct from civil liability.
The prosecutor is aware that the staute is unconstitutionally vague,and gives the jury unfettered discretion to find against someone they just don't like.
By suggesting that pete is dangerous, a felon, has a past he tried to hide, and so forth, she has been able to try the case in the media, so that pete would be unable to get a fair trial. The case is largely one about motive and intent. Pete contends that he was playing with the children at their request and did not intend any harm or offense.
Pete is not dangerous. He is committed to nonviolence. He is a minister and a lawyer. His father was a conscientious objector during Korea, and Pete registered as a conscientious objector upon turning 18. He is a vegetarian, and has been active in the Libertarian Party, which is based on the idea of non-intiation of force.
When burglars tried to kill him last fall, he used nonviolent means to resist them.
In jail when he was attacked, he used nonviolent means to survive the incident.
He was in jail because the jailors refused to let him have a phone book to be able to call his lawyer and bond out, and intercepted his mail to his lawyer, and denied him visitation, and refused to respond to his greivances, and placed him in a tank with violent convicted criminals.

The characterization of pete as a violent or dangerous person is the opposite of the truth.

Pete, being indigent, was unable to afford the expense of having the trial moved to a county outside the channel's viewing area. He made the tactical decision to waive his right to a jury trial and opt for a bench trial instead, because the jury pool had been tampered with by the defamatory false statemetns about pete which placed him in a false light.

Wherefore, pete seeks damages for the loss of personal and professional reputation, for his pain and suffering, for his rent and moving expenses, for the additional legal fees incurred in his criminal defense as a result of d's misconduct, for the costs and fees of this action, in an amount of not less than than $1 million dollars and as determined by a jury.

Offer of settlement:
if accepted within 30 days of notice of this action, plaintiff offers to settle for $1 in nominal damages and $10,000 in legal fees already incurred, and requests that a mutually acceptable retraction be made.