Nashua newspaper did not defame prisoner, Supreme Court rules
The court said The Telegraph and its reporter, Andrew Wolfe, did not libel prisoner Paul Sanguedolce, 39, formerly of Sanford, Maine, and concluded the "untrue statement that the plaintiff testified against his criminal associate cannot be reasonably construed as defamatory."
However, the case is not over yet because the court also ruled Sanguedolce may be able to make a negligence claim against the newspaper and referred the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Sanguedolce, 39, pleaded guilty in Hillsborough County Superior Court, Southern District, to burglary in connection with a March 2008 home invasion in which an elderly man was tied up and robbed. He was sentenced to 3 to 8 years in the New Hampshire State Prison for Men in Concord. His minimum sentence is up on Aug. 3 although his maximum sentence ends on Aug. 2, 2018.
Wolfe, in an April 21, 2011, article about Sanguedolce's co-defendant Peter Gibbs, wrote that Sanguedolce "testified against" Gibbs at his trial. Sanguedolce did not testify against him, according to the Supreme Court. The newspaper subsequently ran a correction.
Sanguedolce argued that Telegraph readers could find that he, in testifying against Gibbs, had acted as a "rat," "tattletale," "snitch," or had committed perjury or "cut a deal" in exchange for leniency. He contended society often associates informants with disloyalty, betrayal and self-interest, and relies on a body of commentary highlighting that informants are often derided and loathed by society for those attributes.
The court said there may be some elements in our society, prisoners in particular, who would look unkindly on those who willingly cooperate with the authorities in apprehending or convicting a criminal.
"The prevailing view among law-abiding citizens, however, is that such conduct reflects good moral character, respect for the rule of law, a willingness to place the interests of truth, justice, and the social order above one's own self interest or petty loyalties," the court said.
Citing Connelly vs. McKay (Sup. Ct 1941), the court said, "To hold otherwise would be contrary to the public interest in that it would penalize the law-abiding citizen and give comfort to the law violator."
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Jonah Goldberg: There was a time when we stood up to threats against free speech - 0
- Why I voted against the 'CRomnibus' spending bill - 18
- Another View -- Devon Chaffee: Why interrogators believe America should never torture - 2
- David Harsanyi: GOP establishment, stop whining - 0
- John Stossel: Individual giving beats government giving - 3
- BANANAS and NH's energy needs - 5
- Gruber should have been Time's 'Person of the Year' - 5
- In NH, overhunting of RINOs is causing problems - 24
- Another View -- Shawn Jasper: It is time to get to work for the people of NH - 16
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Dave D'Onfrio's Patriots Notebook: Finding a way to win - 0
- Sam Asano's Let's Invent: NoNose gets readers talking like nobody's business - 0
- Know the Law: Your trust can be named beneficiary of an IRA - 0
- Another View -- Bill O'Brien: Ask your state rep. to vote for transparency in the House - 0
- Old friends and a 'homeless angel' make for good stories anytime - 0
- Clooney gets it: Sony attack was not a 'crime' - 0
- New coats warm city kids, firefighters' hearts - 0
- NHIAA Roundup: Martin, Pinkerton top Salem in tournament - 0
- Inmate reported missing from Concord transitional unit - 0
The Sony hack: Kim's judgment of Obama
Tensions boil over after NYC police killings