The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News, your source for engaging and informative Texas news. Our publication focuses on delivering accurate and impactful stories that matter to you, with a primary emphasis on South Texas, including Hays, Bexar, Nueces, Webb, Cameron, and Hidalgo counties. Stay informed about pressing issues and gain a deeper understanding of your government. With a commitment to transparency and accountability, trust us to provide reliable information that holds those in power accountable.
The Texas Supreme Court’s decision on a defamation lawsuit brought by Assistant District Attorney Tommy Coleman against a small newspaper in Polk County ruled that the claimed statement was not actionably defamatory. The Court emphasized assessing the overall message of the publication and whether it conveys the gist of a true story, ultimately dismissing Coleman’s claims.
Texas Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Polk County Enterprise in Assistant District Attorney Defamation Lawsuit
In a decision on February 16, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on a defamation lawsuit brought by Assistant District Attorney Tommy Coleman against a small newspaper in Polk County. The lawsuit stemmed from an article published in June 2020, which criticized Coleman’s involvement in the infamous wrongful conviction of Michael Morton.
The article in question made a specific claim that Coleman had “assisted with the prosecution of Michael Morton” during his time as a prosecutor in Williamson County. This statement was vehemently contested by Coleman, who argued that it was false and defamatory.
However, the Texas Supreme Court’s decision focused on the broader context of the article and the “gist” of the statement, rather than the legal precision of the claim. The Court emphasized that the truth or falsity of an allegedly defamatory statement should be judged by identifying the overall message it conveys to a reasonable reader.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that within the context of the article as a whole, the claim that Coleman “assisted with the prosecution of Michael Morton” was substantially true. This conclusion was based on Coleman’s public involvement in resisting DNA testing of crucial evidence in Morton’s case, despite the evidence eventually leading to Morton’s exoneration after nearly 25 years of wrongful imprisonment.
As a result of this ruling, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed Coleman’s claims, declaring that the statement in question was not actionably defamatory.
Assistant District Attorney Makes Appeal to Texas Supreme Court
Tommy Coleman has a history as a career prosecutor. From 2008 to 2012, he served as an assistant district attorney in the Williamson County DA’s office, which wrongfully prosecuted Michael Morton for murder in the 1980s and resisted efforts to determine Morton’s innocence, ultimately leading to Morton’s exoneration in 2011. Morton’s wrongful conviction stemmed from the murder of his wife Christine in 1986, with Williamson County prosecutors charging him with the crime. Crucially, the bloody bandana found at a construction site near the Mortons’ home was never DNA tested or disclosed to Morton’s defense attorneys.
Despite maintaining his innocence, Morton was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1987. It wasn’t until 2005 that Morton’s attorneys sought access to potentially exculpatory evidence, including the bloody bandana. After years of opposition from Williamson County prosecutors, DNA testing of the bandana was ordered in 2010, ultimately leading to Morton’s exoneration and the conviction of Mark Alan Norwood for the murders of both Christine Morton and another individual.
Coleman’s role in the aftermath of Morton’s exoneration and during the post-conviction proceedings is notable, as he was a Williamson County Assistant District Attorney at the time. The newspaper article in question reports a significant episode where Coleman was heard demeaning Morton’s efforts to prove his innocence in the courtroom during a post-conviction hearing.
Coleman maintains that despite these courtroom comments, he did not “assist” in Morton’s post-conviction proceedings as he claims to not have argued in court, signed pleadings, discussed case strategy, or given any public statements or interviews in the Morton case. The article also indicates that Coleman left his position in Williamson County in 2012 after a new DA decided to revamp the office by replacing prosecutors she believed were trained in the practices that led to Morton’s wrongful conviction.
At the time of the article, Coleman was a prosecutor in Polk County, and although his counsel stated at oral argument that he has now moved to a different DA’s office, Coleman has not specifically contested this characterization of events.
The Polk County Enterprise’s Perspective on the Lawsuit
The Polk County Enterprise found itself embroiled in a legal battle following the publication of an article by Valerie Reddell titled, “Battle lines drawn over prosecutor’s conduct” on June 18, 2020. The article opened with a reference to one of the worst episodes of wrongful conviction in Texas jurisprudence, implicating a prosecutor who had joined the Polk County Criminal District Attorney’s Office.
The crux of the legal dispute revolved around the assertion in the article’s second paragraph that Tommy Lamar Coleman “assisted with the prosecution of Michael Morton,” during his tenure at the Williamson County District Attorney’s Office. While most of the article criticized the history of the Morton case and detailed Coleman’s controversial actions, it lacked specific factual details supporting the claim of assistance in the prosecution of Michael Morton.
The publication of the article led to swift repercussions, including Coleman’s public display of dissatisfaction on his Facebook page stating: “I think someone just bought me a new Corvette today. I will be sure to put their names on the personalized plates.” Subsequently, his then-boss, Polk County District Attorney Lee Hon, published a letter in the Polk County Enterprise defending Coleman.. Coleman alleged that the article was a retaliatory action in response to his social media activity, prompting further legal threats and demands for retraction from Coleman’s attorneys.
In response to these demands, the Enterprise published a front-page “Correction” on July 2, 2020, acknowledging the mischaracterization of Coleman’s role at the Williamson County DA’s office and expressing regret over the error. The correction was titled “Coleman not involved in Morton trial and prosecution.” It went on to provide a five-sentence correction and stated Coleman was not a licensed lawyer until 2002, so he “was not involved in the initial trial and prosecution of Michael Morton in 1987.” In conclusion of the correction, Polk County Enterprise stated: “[t]he proceedings that took place between 2005 and 2011 should not have been referred to as ‘prosecution.’ We regret the error.” Despite this correction, Coleman proceeded to sue for defamation, leading to a series of legal motions and appeals.
The defendants, including the Polk County Enterprise, contended that the challenged statement was not actionably false and sought to dismiss the suit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. Despite a denial of the TCPA motion by the trial court and subsequent affirmations by the court of appeals, the defendants petitioned for review in the higher court, ultimately leading to the involvement of the Texas Supreme Court in this contentious legal battle.
Texas Supreme Court Considers the Texas Citizens Participation Act
The Texas Supreme Court’s review of Coleman’s defamation lawsuit against the Polk County Enterprise focused on the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and the establishment of the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. Coleman filed the suit in response to the Enterprise’s story about the public concern surrounding the Morton case and the character and fitness of prosecutors in the Polk County District Attorney’s office.
The Court affirmed that the Morton case was indeed a matter of public concern, as were the questions regarding the prosecutors in the Polk County District Attorney’s office. The suit exemplified the type of lawsuit that the Legislature intended to be subjected to early testing of its merits and to early appeals.
In order to avoid dismissal under the TCPA, Coleman needed to provide clear and specific evidence establishing a prima facie case for each essential element of his defamation claim, including the publication of a false statement of fact by the defendant. The Court found that Coleman did not establish the allegedly defamatory statement as actionably false, and thus, his defamation claim should have been dismissed.
The Court emphasized that the evaluation of the falsity of an allegedly defamatory article goes beyond the literal truth of individual statements. It involves assessing the overall meaning of the publication and whether it conveys the gist of a true story. The “gist” of the publication is what matters, and if it is substantially true, despite potential errors in the details, it is not actionable.
Identifying the gist of an allegedly defamatory publication is considered a question of law for the court, which is determined by examining how a person of ordinary intelligence would interpret it. The inquiry is based on how a hypothetical reasonable reader or average listener would understand the article, rather than the interpretation of any particular reader. This standard was applied to Coleman’s case to determine the substantial truth of the allegedly defamatory statement.
Texas Supreme Court Renders an Opinion
In a decision by the Texas Supreme Court, the allegation of falsity made by Coleman regarding the statement that he “assisted with the prosecution of Michael Morton” in an article published by the Polk County Enterprise was thoroughly addressed.
Coleman vehemently contended that the statement misrepresented his involvement in both the initial prosecution and conviction of Morton in the mid-1980s, as well as the post-conviction proceedings in 2010–11 that led to Morton’s exoneration. However, the Court’s careful analysis focused on the overall message conveyed to a reasonable reader by the article as a whole.
The Court emphasized that the article, written from a non-lawyer perspective, did not distinguish between the procedural phases of the Morton case. It viewed the entire Morton episode as one continuous “case,” where anyone involved with the Williamson County side was seen as assisting with the prosecution. The Court acknowledged that legal nuances were overlooked, leading to imprecise terminology and potential misunderstandings by non-legally savvy readers.
Despite Coleman’s meticulous focus on the technicalities of his involvement, the Court determined that the gist of the article did not convey to the reasonable reader that Coleman participated in the initial prosecutorial misconduct in the 1980s or in the post-conviction proceedings in a formal legal capacity. In fact, the article only provided the specific detail of Coleman’s courtroom statement in 2011 as evidence of his “assistance” with the prosecution.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the article’s characterization of Coleman’s involvement did not convey false information about his connection to the post-conviction phase of the proceedings. Even if the article’s statement was perceived as encompassing falsehoods about Coleman’s involvement, the Court found that a truthful statement would not be more damaging to his reputation.
As a result, Coleman’s claims were deemed non-actionable by the Court under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, and the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.
Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News