Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Reason
Reason
Politics
Eugene Volokh

"A Pardon Cannot … Change the Underlying Facts and Truth" for Purposes of a Defamation Action

From DeBarros v. Pedbereznak, decided last Friday by Connecticut Superior Court Judge John Cordani:

The plaintiff in this matter, Jonathan De Barros, was a candidate in the Republican primary associated with the upcoming election for the U.S. Congressional Fifth District seat in Connecticut. The plaintiff has brought claims for … defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress …. All of the claims arise out of communications [during the campaign] by the defendants concerning a 1996 incident involving the plaintiff in which one man was killed and another was severely wounded….

On October 13, 1996, the plaintiff shot Jermaine Lewis several times and killed him. At the same time, the plaintiff, using a second gun, also shot Scott Nash several times and severely wounded him. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff was charged with murder, attempt to commit murder, and first degree assault with a firearm. At trial, although the plaintiff raised self defense as a defense to the charges, the plaintiff was convicted of all the charged offenses including murder in a jury trial and was sentenced to life in prison.

The plaintiff appealed the conviction and the Appellate Court ordered a new trial [link added -EV]. The second trial resulted in a hung jury. The plaintiff then entered into a plea deal, pled to manslaughter and served a lengthy but reduced prison term. In 2022, the plaintiff was pardoned….

The plaintiff complains that Salamone {a delegate to the Republican primary convention} referred to the plaintiff as a murderer at the Republican convention. The plaintiff complains that Weiss {another delegate} wrote on Facebook and Twitter that "he [plaintiff] claimed to be a victim in 1996 while murdering a man in cold blood." {The term "cold blood" is somewhat ambiguous, but the court finds that it means that the killing was committed intentionally and without an effective defense. The crime of murder has the foregoing elements as part of the crime. There is no doubt the plaintiff shot and killed one man and shot and seriously injured another. The difference between killing, manslaughter and murder lies in the circumstances of the killing and the intent of the plaintiff at the time.} The plaintiff complained that Pedbereznak {a former Waterbury police officer who appeared on a pod cast operated by defendant Mariorano} and Mariorano referred to the plaintiff as a murderer and stated that the plaintiff "committed the act and the crime of murder" on Mariorano's podcast….

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.