Judge rules four Inquirer reporters guilty of contempt

CAMDEN - A Superior Court judge ruled today that four Inquirer reporters were guilty of contempt for violating a court order restricting the media from contacting or identifying jurors in the murder trial of Rabbi Fred Neulander .

In a 21-page opinion, Judge Theodore Z. Davis found that staff writers George Anastasia, Dwight Ott and Emilie Lounsberry had violated an order by Judge Linda G. Baxter not to "contact or attempt to interview" any members of the jury, including after the case ended in a mistrial. Reporter Joseph A. Gambardello was also accused of that violation, but the matter was dropped for lack of evidence.

Davis, however, ruled that Anastasia, Ott, Lounsberry and Gambardello had violated another portion of Baxter's order, which stated that "neither the identity nor descriptions that would reasonably identify any juror may be publicized."

The reporters have been ordered to appear Thursday for sentencing before Davis. The maximum penalty is $1,000 and six months in jail.

Rabbi Neulander's trial for the alleged murder of his wife, Carol, ended in a mistrial on Nov. 13. At the conclusion of the trial Baxter reminded the jurors of her restrictions on the media but told them they could speak to the press.

In April, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Baxter's prohibition on identifying jurors was unconstitutional. During last month's contempt proceedings in Superior Court, Deputy Attorney General Eric Schweiker argued that identification portion of Baxter's order was still in effect Nov. 16 when the Inquirer published an article that named jury forewoman Colleen Darnell and raised questions about whether she was living in Camden County or Philadelphia at the time of the trial.

In his decision, the judge wrote: "The conduct of the media respondents imply that they are of the opinion that their haste to disseminate news...is superior to a fair and reasonable judicial process...Furthermore, the respondents' conduct strongly suggests an arrogance which should not and must not be judicially digested. For to do so would be an abdication of the court's constitutional responsibility to maintain a viable, fair and operational judicial system for all the citizens of New Jersey, including those charged with the most heinous crimes. The respondents' arrogance and contumacious conduct cannot by this court be swallowed and digested."

Floyd Abrams, a nationally known First Amendment lawyer based in New York City and who was not involved in the Inquirer case, said an order prohibiting reporters from contacting jurors after a trial is unusual and contempt findings are "extremely rare."

"There are very few contempt cases against journalists and almost all of them have been decided in favor of the journalists," Abrams said.

Inquirer Deputy Managing Editor Hank Klibanoff said the paper was sticking by its reporters.

"The testimony I heard in this case showed that Inquirer reporters acted courteously, honestly and in the highest journalistic traditions in their reporting following the Neulander trial," Klibanoff said. "They pursued a story of genuine public importance and concern, including whether one of the jurors in the New Jersey case was, in fact, a Philadelphia resident. The reporters did their jobs professionally, and we remain steadfast in our support of them."

Mike Pinsky, lawyer for Ott, said he needed to study the ruling further, but, "Naturally, we're all disappointed with the judge's decision because we think there's an important First Amendment right at stake here."

Disagreeing with the reporters' lawyers, Davis ruled that Baxter's order was not vague and the reporters were aware of it and that they were adequately identified through evidence and testimony introduced by the state Attorney General's office. While Davis' decision noted one juror testified that the New York Times attempted to contact him twice by phone, the judge ruled that the lawyers for the Inquirer reporters did not prove selective enforcement of Baxter's order.

John Hagerty, spokesman for the state Division of Criminal Justice which is under the Attorney General, noted that the case was assigned to them and they were obligated to pursue it.

"It's unfortunate that this issue moved to the legal forum that is the courts in the first place," he said. "The defendants in this case have solid reputations as journalists and while the Division of Criminal Justice was obligated to move forward with the prosecution and contempt proceeding, we hope they will continue to pursue fair and impartial reporting of new stories."

A retrial in the Rabbi Neulander case is scheduled for September in Monmouth County. Rabbi Neulander is currently in the Burlington County jail, where he was relocated last month to be closer to his new lawyer.

In January, Davis found Philadelphia Magazine writer Carol Saline in contempt for talking to a Neulander juror about being interviewed in the future while the trial was still going on. He fined her $1,000 and gave her a 30-day suspended sentence.

The Inquirer is a left-wing liberal rag, but reporters should not
be arrested for talking to people just because some judge doesn't
like it.

Then I won't further alarm you with news of
the Wall Street Journal not only being under orders not
to publish a particular story going back to the
Clinton days, but it is also illegal for the Journal
to say there exists a court order outlawing such.
Don't buy into all the jingoism about what a
free country this is.

I Googled a little of the prior restraint
involving the WSJ. Here is an excerpt:

None of these events have been covered in detail in any of the official investigations. In fact, when the Wall Street Journal attempted to get the sealed Fiske report on Foster, it ran into something that can hardly be construed as anything but a national
security veil. A court not only denied the Wall Street Journal access but told it not to report a word on the ruling. It is rare that a court gets away with such unconstitutional prior restraint. In appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn this prior restraint, lawyers for the Wall Street Journal wrote: "It is inconceivable that there can be any legitimate, much less extraordinary, reason
for shielding the public from knowledge that" -- and there the sentence ends. For the appeal was a public document, and
therefore it could not say what was under seal.

Nor should they be allowed to manipulate justice by threatening to expose jurors involved in a highly charged court trial. Words fail me as to the appropriate treatment for those slime who printed the names and addresses of the jurors in the first Rodney King trial.

Fair enough, but we don't know in this case if the jurors named by the Inquirer reporters requested anonymity. I recently served on a jury trial and was interviewed by a reporter after the verdict. He said his paper didn't print names of jurors, but even if the paper had had a different policy, I would not have had a problem with being named.

Anyhow, in this article's case, it seems wrong for the judge to punish the press for talking to jurors after a mistrial.

"Every law passed should have a sunset provision."

Murder? Robbery? Divorce? Marriage? Child Support?

Why not? Even laws in those catgegories deserve a second look and could probably improved upon.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.