Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-LV-81-180-MDC.,CV-LV-81-180-MDC. |
| Citation | 677 F. Supp. 1066 |
| Parties | Carson Wayne NEWTON, a/k/a Wayne Newton, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Morton R. Galane, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff.
Floyd Abrams, New York City, for defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL.
Defendants' Motions for Judgment N.O.V., New Trial and Remittitur were argued and submitted on September 3 and 4, 1987, at Las Vegas, Nevada.
Defendants contend that they are entitled to Judgment N.O.V. because plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the broadcasts in question were false or made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
The Court is satisfied from its independent review of all of the evidence in this case that plaintiff has met his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
A reckless disregard for truth or falsity requires that defendants have serious subjective doubts as to the truth of the broadcasts. This state of mind can be established through the cumulation of circumstantial evidence.
Since the defendants voluntarily edited and combined the audio with the visual portions of the broadcasts in a way that created the defamatory impressions, the jury could properly find that defendants not only had serious subjective doubts as to the truth of the broadcasts, but also intended to defame the plaintiff.
The clear and inescapable impression made by the broadcasts was that plaintiff did not have enough money to buy the Aladdin Hotel so he called a friend, Guido Penosi, who had ties to organized crime; and that Mr. Penosi helped him raise the money and thus obtained a hidden interest in the Aladdin Hotel.
Defendants knew this impression was defamatory because giving anyone a hidden interest in a gaming casino is a violation of law, and as such is defamatory and not protected as a statement of opinion.
Defendants also knew this impression was false because Mr. Ross and Mr. Silverman had attended the hearing before the Nevada Gaming Board where the Valley Bank of Nevada established that it had provided the money for the plaintiff to purchase the Aladdin Hotel.
Defendants also knew this impression was false because Mr. Ross and Mr. Silverman had been told by Source "B", Mark Moreno and Agent Shepard that plaintiff called Guido Penosi because of death threats to his daughter and himself. This knowledge is corroborated by Mr. Ross asking plaintiff in the parking lot following the gaming board hearing on September 25, 1980: "Was he Guido Penosi ever here to provide for protection or for the protection of your children?"
By creating the impression that plaintiff had a hidden partner in the Aladdin Hotel and not telling the gaming board about it when he was under oath, the broadcast inferred plaintiff had committed perjury which is also a violation of law.
The impression of a hidden interest in the Aladdin Hotel is further advanced by the statement in the broadcast, "A federal grand jury is now investigating the role of Guido Penosi and the mob in Newton's deal for the Aladdin."
Although defendants testified they did not intend the broadcasts to convey a defamatory impression, the evidence is such that the jury was entitled to reject their testimony as incredible and find that defendants must have had serious subjective doubts about the truth of the broadcasts.
The false and defamatory impression that plaintiff received financial help from organized crime to purchase the Aladdin Hotel, even if unintentional, should have been foreseen and shows a reckless disregard for the truth.
There are many other bits of evidence that convince the Court that plaintiff has shown by a cumulation of circumstantial evidence that defendants had serious subjective doubts as to the truth of the broadcasts, so defendants cannot escape liability. Therefore, defendants' Motion for Judgment N.O.V. is denied as to liability.
The evidence that defendants made the broadcasts with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity is some evidence of the "ill will and hatred" required to sustain punitive damages under Nevada Rev.Stat. § 41.333.
There is also other evidence of ill will such as the broadcasts that repeated the defamatory impression after plaintiff had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
...the verdict, discussed only what it considered to be the false impression created by the broadcasts. Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 677 F.Supp. 1066, 1067 (D.Nev.1987) ("The clear and inescapable impression made by the broadcasts was that [Newton] did not have enough money to bu......
-
Simon v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.
...inference. Under these circumstances, the district court's reversal of special damages must be affirmed. See Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., 677 F.Supp. 1066, 1069 (D.Nev.1987) (granting JNOV only as to lost profits IV. New Trial Because we affirm the district court's grant of a JNOV o......
- Jennings v. Oku, Civ. No. 86-1026.