Which State's Law Will Apply in
Ramsey Libel Case?

Richmond Eustis
Fulton County Daily Report
07-12-2002

Before a federal court decides if John and
Patsy Ramsey's defamation case can
proceed against Court TV, it must decide
which state's law will apply.

The Ramseys sued Court TV in 2001,
accusing it of publishing a press release
and broadcasting a panel show in which it
falsely identified JonBenét Ramsey's
brother, Burke, as a one-time suspect in
the murder investigation. Ramsey v.
Courtroom Television Network, LLC, No
1:01-cv-1561 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2001).

The show and the press release found a
nationwide audience. During a hearing
Wednesday the Ramseys' Atlanta lawyer
L. Lin Wood Jr. told U.S. District Judge
Clarence Cooper that Georgia law should
apply, while Court TV's lawyer Cameron A.
Stracher of Levine Sullivan & Koch in
Washington, D.C., contended the New
York law is more appropriate.

This issue could make a big difference
later in any possible trial. In Georgia, the
plaintiffs would have to show only that
Court TV was negligent in the statements
it made about Burke Ramsey, whom
Wood intends to argue is a private figure.
On the other hand, in New York, the
plaintiffs would have to show that Court
TV acted with "gross irresponsibility" -- a
slightly higher standard.

In choice of law disputes, federal courts
apply to rules of the forum state. In
Georgia, that's lex loci delicti, which Wood
argued should apply in this case.
However, Judge Cooper noted that the
principle doesn't apply when the complaint
concerns a multistate defamation action,
and told the lawyers from the bench that
he wouldn't apply it. Rather, he said, he
would apply the nine factors from the
Restatement of Conflict of Laws, § 150, to
decide which state's law should govern.

THE NINE FACTORS

That set both sides into a flurry of
factor-counting -- each lawyer trying to
rack up more notches for his side. The
nine factors the restatement establishes
are:

• the state where the plaintiff lives;

• the state where the defendant is said to
have done alleged defamation;

• the state where the plaintiff suffered the
most harm;

• the state where the defendant lives or is
incorporated;

• the location of the defendant's main
publishing office;

• the state where the alleged defamation
circulated most;

• the place the defamatory information
came from;

• the state where the defamation was
seen first; and

• the state of the forum.

Wood claimed one, three, "half" of five
and eight, and nine. Stracher, however,
said Georgia could legitimately claim only
three factors: one, three and nine. On the
other hand, he said, the defendant's
home state, main office, the state of
primary circulation, and place of
emanation all favor New York. That, he
said, leaves four factors favoring New
York, three favoring Georgia, and two
neutral, or favoring the law of Colorado,
where the murder occurred. "With all due
respect to Mr. Wood's math, he's counting
out nine and coming up with 10," Stracher
said.

Wood countered that the court shouldn't
give each of the factors equal weight.
Court TV, he said, is a New York company.
But it injured a Georgia resident. The
more important factors, he said, are the
ones that favor applying Georgia law.
"You have to weigh the factors," Wood
said. "He's got four singles but I've got
three home runs."

Stracher scoffed at Wood's suggestion
that the court weigh the factors. "There's
no case authority for that anywhere," he
told the judge. Judge Cooper said he
would not rule until next Friday. But he
reminded the lawyers that whatever he
decides might affect the defense's
outstanding motion to dismiss, and the
plaintiffs' outstanding motion for
summary judgment. The arguments
Wednesday included the former but not
the latter.

NETWORK ACCUSED OF LIBEL

The plaintiff's complaint accuses Court TV
of libel for statements it published in an
Oct. 27, 1997, press release and
"defamacast" for statements made during
a Nov. 5, 1997, panel show discussing the
murder. On both charges, the plaintiffs
are seeking $10 million in actual
damages, $25 million in punitive
damages, plus court costs.

The news release promoted the show
titled "Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey,
Prime Suspects," featuring such perennial
celebrity case dissectors as Mark
Fuhrman, Vincent Bugliosi and Larry
Pozner. The panel, the release noted,
would weigh the evidence "incriminating or
exonerating" what it called four possible
suspects: JonBenet's parents, her brother,
or an outside intruder.

The gist of the show and the release,
Wood said, is that Boulder, Colo., police
and prosecutors had considered Burke a
key suspect at one time. However, Wood
argued, Boulder law enforcement never
marked Burke as a formal suspect in the
investigation and never found any
evidence linking him to his sister's death.
"The conduct of Defendant in exploiting a
twelve year old child for profit by placing
him on trial on television for the brutal
murder of his sister is reprehensible and
unconscionable conduct."

Stracher and co-counsel John J. Dalton, of
Atlanta-based Troutman Sanders, accused
Wood of patching together defamatory
statements and then wrenching them out
of context.

In his memorandum supporting his
motion to dismiss, Stracher notes that the
press release didn't accuse Burke of any
crime, and that the show "in fact,
communicated precisely the opposite
message to viewers, offering detailed and
specific evidence indicating that he could
not have murdered his sister."

JonBenét Ramsey was murdered
sometime between the night of Dec. 25,
1996, and the morning of Dec. 26, 1996,
in the Ramsey home in Boulder. JonBenét
was 6 at the time; Burke was 9. The
murder sparked intense media scrutiny
nationwide, including several books,
countless television broadcasts and a
flood of articles.

A grand jury sitting in Boulder in 1998 and
1999 finished without returning
indictments against anyone. No one has
been charged with the girl's death.