Las Vegas Sun

May 6, 2015

Currently: 77° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Jon Ralston:

Judge to reporter: Don’t cover story and I’ll be nice

How do you know when a judge is threatening you?

When he says it isn’t a threat. Just a “wish.” A “gentle wish,” even.

Stick around long enough and you think you might cease to be surprised by the behavior of elected officials. But what Judge Allan Earl did during a hearing on Nov. 7 stuns me — I have just obtained a transcript — and should disgust, terrify and outrage anyone who cares about freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Let me distill: During a hearing on a retaliatory witch hunt disguised as a subpoena for information, Earl actually told a reporter he would be predisposed in her favor if she declined to continue covering a story involving a case before him.

I wrote about the case a couple of weeks ago: The case involves an attempt by lawyers for Jeff Guinn, the late governor’s son who is being sued by investors alleging financial shenanigans, to impugn the integrity of my “Face to Face” producer, Dana Gentry. They are doing so by abusing the so-called “litigation privilege,” which essentially keeps them immune from libel, to request documents to prove she has been plied with favors, a false charge that they insidiously raise without evidence by requesting documents that don’t exist or actually would negate their case.

Their tactics are obscene and should be condemned by all lawyers and journalists. But it gets worse because Earl, while he quashed the subpoena, acted as an enabler for the attorneys by all but threatening Gentry if she continued to cover the story. They wanted her sidelined; Earl tried to push her there.

You think I exaggerate? Let the judge’s words speak for themselves, via the transcript:

Earl asked Gentry to come stand by her lawyer (and mine), Don Campbell. Then, after announcing he would quash the outrageous subpoena, Earl said:

“Now I’m going to tell you because you’re a news person what my wish is. It is not my order, I would never, ever order such a thing. It is my wish — it’s not a threat; you understand that?”

How understated. How … non-threatening. But why, Your Honor, say anything at all?

It gets worse:

Earl: “It is my gentle wish that this case be tried in front of a jury and decided and not tried in television programs. Now, you may do what you wish, but that is my wish. We’re going to have to pick a jury out of this community that knows absolutely nothing about this case and to sit for days and days and days and ferret out all the testimony and give each party the benefit of the doubt until they have decided which way to rule. That is more important to me than anything, even your career.”

So the implication is he would be willing to destroy Gentry’s career to ensure an untainted jury pool? Really, judge?

Earl repeated that it’s “not an order,” but then he added, ominously: “You can go out today and report this any way you want; that’s your right under the Constitution, and it’s your right in your profession. But the less you are involved in this, the better it is for this decision.”

In shock, Gentry said: “I’m sorry. I didn’t hear you.”

Earl: “I said the less you are involved in this in the future, the better it is for this decision concerning the subpoena.”

Now there may be a different way to interpret that than: “If you stop covering this story, maybe I won’t let the lawyers for one side go on a witch hunt.” But if there is, I can’t fathom it.

(I tried to get a response from the judge, but to no avail.)

These chilling words from the judge came after a brief hearing in which Guinn’s lawyers — Brandon Kemble and John Bailey — tried to make the case that Gentry should produce documents to prove something for which they have no evidence (because it is untrue ).

Kemble actually claimed during the hearing, “We have a good idea of what is out there.” No, he doesn’t; he has no idea, or doesn’t care. I know what is out there and it does not back up his McCarthy-like tactics.

But, as I have said before, there is a greater principle here, as Campbell put it during the hearing. “If you do tell them something, then on another occasion don’t tell them something, then you’re clearly taking inconsistent positions with respect to how the news media responds to such subpoenas.”

Indeed. And as Campbell said so eloquently, the issue is “that you don’t drag reporters and news gatherers into a courtroom based upon this very, very scant and slender showing which is punctuated by nothing more than what would otherwise be defamatory material about this very, very well respected reporter and producer.”

Exactly. If they were not cowering behind the putative protection of the “litigation privilege,” these lawyers would be in court as defendants in a case they would have no chance to win because the defamation would be so easily proven.

I thought what these lawyers were doing was outrageous — and it is. But for a judge to hold a Damoclean subpoena over a reporter’s head is an unconscionable judicial overreach.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 5 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. 'Justice' in Nevader...

    Should scare the crap out of everyone.
    If you have a 'legal issue', you are swimming with sharks.

  2. It is obvious that your mind is made up about this case. It is just as obvious that the judge is trying to keep an open mind. "Freedom" of the press should be limited to reporting AFTER trial and not be allowed to influence the jury pool before trial. Y O U are not the judge and jury.The press in America seems to me to have done its best to take justice out of the courts by substituting opinion for fact.

  3. To my fellow bloggers;
    I don't particularly like or trust news reporters and this opinion is only from personal previous encounters with their lies, negative insinuations and falsehoods. But, in this case, in my opinion, I must side with the reporters as to the subtle threat made by the Judge. I am kind of in the same boat, if my boss (suggests) that I do something lawful and proper in the course of my duty, I could pretty much conclude that this is considered and order and failure to abide by that order is pretty much grounds for insubordination. If my boss (suggests) I do something unlawful or improper, which is what I see here, then shame on him/her. When a Judge sits on the bench in a court room, there is nobody between The Judge and God when they (suggest) something, as long as it is lawful and proper. In my humble opinion, this (suggestion) was maybe practical and based on common sense, but not proper and lawful. Of all of the Bill of Rights, this one (Speech) is the most powerful and sacred or our Amendments. Good luck Jon and Dana with your argument. Just an old cop reflecting,

    Gordon Martines

    p.s. this could be a good start in cleaning up the corruption in this town.

  4. For once that liberal bum gmag has it right. I have said it before, many businesses would like to locate here, and for that matter Arizona. the problem is the crooked legal system. how would you like to move your hard work and millions of dollars here only to have it taken away by crooked judges and lawyers, the good old buy system . Nevada a third world country.

  5. These comments from the bench are outrageous, as is the attempted use of the judicial system to muzzle the press.