|
Report
Archive:
ˇ April 9, 2002:
Akre Appeal and Documents
ˇ
April 9, 2002:
Wilson Appeal and
Documents
ˇ November 2, 2000:
JURY VERDICT STANDS
ˇ October 12, 2000:
JUDGE RELUCTANT TO
SET ASIDE JURY VERDICT
Fox gets 15 days to
submit
new brief
ˇ September 7 2000:
BOTH SIDES APPEAL
JURY VERDICT
Trial judge will hear
arguments October
12
ˇ August 26, 2000:
VERDICT DOESN'T STOP FOX
FROM CONTINUING TO DISTORT THE NEWS
News, Analysis and
Commentary about how Fox twists news of verdict and
reports
"total vindication"
ˇ August
18, 2000:
VICTORY IN
COURT!
Full coverage of the jury's
decision in the
Fox/BGH suit
ˇ August
5, 2000:
Guest
Editorial
ˇ July 27, 2000:
Trial Coverage: Days
8-9
Startling Admission from Fox
V-P Who Fired
Wilson/Akre
ˇ July 26,
2000:
Trial
Coverage: Day 7
V-P News Lays Claim To
Insanity
Defense
ˇ July 24, 2000:
Trial Coverage: Day
6
Second week of trial begins
ˇ July 21, 2000:
Trial Coverage: Day
5
Week one ends with a bang;
Fox seeks mistrial,
Judge
says no
ˇ July 20, 2000:
Trial Coverage: Days
3 and 4
ˇ July 18, 2000:
Trial Coverage: Day
2
ˇ July 17, 2000:
Trial Coverage: Day
1
ˇ July 14, 2000:
Justice For Sale In
Tampa?
Finally at the
courthouse,
litigants can't afford to use
the courtroom
facilities
ˇ July 12, 2000:
Fox Loses Key
Motion; Jury
Is Seated
Plaintiffs do not have
to
prove Fox guilty of violating Communications Act
ˇ July
8, 2000:
Potential Landmine
Could
Derail Entire Case
ˇ June 30, 2000:
Judge Steinberg
Ready To
Get Case Back On Track
ˇ June 26, 2000:
Another Judge Says
'No' to Hearing Wilson/Akre v Fox Case
ˇ June 21,
2000:
Still No
Judge To Hear Fox/BGH Case While Foxes Dishes More Distortion To
WTVT Tampa Viewers
ˇ June 16,
2000:
Trial
Date Pushed Back Again; New Judge To Be Selected
ˇ June
8, 2000:
Fox Manager
Who Fired Akre and Wilson In Tampa Gets Big
Promotion
David Boylan Flies Into The Sunset to Manage
KTTV, Los Angeles
ˇ June 6, 2000:
Fox Trial Will Start
Sooner Than Expected
It will proceed in the heat of the
summer, probably in July
ˇ May 25, 2000:
Fox Trial Will Not
Start June 12 as Scheduled
ˇ May 18, 2000:
Fox Still Stalls on
Testimony of Its president Mitchell Stern
Pre-trial hearing
is otherwise uneventful
ˇ May 8,
2000:
Ralph
Nader Testifies About Broadcasters' Public Interest
Requirement
Presidential candidate gives testimony at
pre-trial depo
ˇ May 5, 2000:
Court-ordered
Mediation Is Brief and Unsuccessful
Trial set to begin June
12
ˇ April 28,2000:
Fox
Challenges rBGH Experts At Depositions
Fox lawyers laying
ground-
work to tell jurors experts are cancer
scaremongers?
ˇ April 26,2000:
Walter
Cronkite Testifies on Behalf of Akre & Wilson
Fox lawyers
lodge objections
ˇ October 19:
Fox
Lawyers Insist On Secrecy At Deposition
French TV
Ejected
ˇ October 18:
FDA Wants Comments on G-M Foods
Public
Meetings Start in November
ˇ October 13:
Judge
Rules: Trial Will Proceed: Defense loses third effort to have
case dismissed
ˇ September 24:
MSNBC:
Gene-modified foods might get labels: Industry weighs
voluntary steps, U.S. studies options as well
ˇ September
20:
Trial Still Set to Start Soon: Busy Docket Delays
foxBGHsuit
ˇ August 4:
MSNBC:
Mutable Feast: Will the fight over gene-altered food
products leapfrog across the Atlantic?
ˇ June 30:
Consumers International: UN Health Group
Shuns BGH
ˇ June 1:
New York
Times: Farmers’ Right To Sue Grows - Food Warning Muzzle
Likely
ˇ May 10:
Corporate
Crime Reporter: Monsanto Officials Join Leading Consumer,
Environmental Groups
ˇ May 3:
Fox
Deceives Viewers in Primetime, Too Net Admits Staging
after INSIDE EDITION Report
ˇ April 30:
Democracy Group Award to Akre/Wilson Fired
Reporters Cited for "Courage in Journalism"
ˇ April 29:
New
Trial Date is October 11 Fox Piles On Big-Name
Lawyers
ˇ April 17:
Clinton
Lawyer Joins Fox Legal Team David Kendall Involvement
Confirmed in Letter to Monsanto
ˇ April 16:
Fox
Pleads for Another Delay Later Trial Date to be Set April
29th
ˇ April 1:
Judge
Says BGH Case Will Go To Trial Opening Gavel Falls May
10th
ˇ February 16:
PENTHOUSE Exposes BGH, Fox Coverup:
First-rate story of BGH situation and lawsuit against Fox TV
(rated G -- no nudity, just the story)
ˇ January 25:
ENS Summary of BGH Developments
ˇ January
14:
How Fox Wanted to Slant News of Canadian
Concerns Canadian BGH Concerns Were Big Issue In Firing
of Fox Reporters
ˇ January 14:
Canada Says NO to BGH!
Read
the CBC Story or 
ˇ January 14:
Health Canada Rejects Bovine Growth Hormone in
Canada Government News Release
ˇ December
16:
Akre & Wilson Win Courage Award For Work
On Story Which Cost Them Their Jobs
ˇ December 15:
ABC
NEWS Catches Up on BGH Read the ABC Story or
ˇ November 7:
FOX Legal (8/28)
Answers to Reporters' Complaint Now
Available
ˇ November 1:
Monsanto and
Fox: Partners in Censorship PR Watch - Showcase
Article
ˇ October 30:
Canadians Probe Coverup Claim
Read
CBC Story or
ˇ October 24:
Reporters
Get Top SPJ Ethics Award
ˇ October 22:
BGH Issue
Explodes in Canada: Read
CBC Story or
ˇ October 7:
SECRET
Canadian Study Leaked... ...BGH safety questions
unanswered?
ˇ Sept 13:
Akre-Wilson Depos Start
ˇ Sept
10:
TIMES/St. Petersburg SP Times covers NutraSweet flap
ˇ Sept
10:
Our Story: Fox Still Protecting Monsanto?
ˇ
Sept 8:
Fox Pulls Plug on NutraSweet Foe
ˇ Sept
1:
Reporters Respond To Defense
ˇ READ story FOX-TV refused to air... or
ˇ July 14:
Judge
refuses to dismiss all but one count of reporters'
suit
ˇ July 5:
OBSERVER/London Digger Still
Plays Dirty
ˇ July 1:
Depositions Continue, Trial Date Set
ˇ June
7:
TIMES/St. Petersburg Akre/Wilson
Preparing FCC Complaint
ˇ May 26:
Judge
rejects Defense motion for Protective Order
ˇ May
25:
WEEKLY PLANET/Tampa: Grazing A
Stink - - -Don't Have a Cow
ˇ May 23:
NEW YORK
TIMES: (Silenced) Reporters... Post Web Site
ˇ May
21:
Wilson/Akre demand on-air correction
ˇ April
29:
FOX-TV asks court: Dismiss
case and Delay depositions
|
THE WILSON APPEAL
ISSUES IN STEVE WILSON'S
CASE
By
STEVE WILSON AND JANE AKRE
|
The appeal against Akre’s win by Fox will be heard
alongside co-plaintiff Steve Wilson’s appeal of his
verdict.
The jury that returned a $425,000 verdict for Akre
returned nothing for Wilson despite the fact the two worked on
the identical story and together resisted Fox efforts to get
them to broadcast information they knew and documented to be
false and distorted.
How could the verdicts be different?
Months earlier, Wilson had another attorney who was
supposed to represent his interests at trial. However, on the eve of
trial that attorney demanded payment up front and when he
didn’t receive it, he removed himself from the case. Wilson was left with
the option of representing himself at trial while Chamblee and
Johnson agreed to continue to represent Akre in the courtroom.
At trial, Wilson pursued the case aggressively –the
same way he pursued stories on TV—with a tough, aggressive,
no-nonsense style that bores in until the facts are
clear. But an
aggressive advocate can make a poor victim and at trial Fox
pointed to Wilson’s demeanor as a negative that would have
earned any employee a pink slip.
Wilson is appealing what he sees as a faulty jury
instruction. He
believes—and many legal scholars agree—that jurors should have
been told they could find for Wilson (as they did for Akre) if
the whistleblower threat was a “predominant” or “important”
reason for termination and not the ONLY reason. A similar standard
exists in laws protecting workers for being fired for racial
or age discrimination.
Let’s say for instance, that you are African-American
and your boss fires you primarily because he doesn’t like
blacks. You file
suit and claim you were fired because of your race…but the
boss says “No, you misunderstood, it’s because you were late
to work on two occasions.” Yes, you were late a
couple of times for good reason, you explain. So which is it? A legitimate reason to
fire you as a poor employee, or a smokescreen to cover up the
racial bias which also exists? In cases like these,
jurors are told the racial bias (or age or religion or
whatever sort of discrimination) must be a primary or
important reason, though not
necessarily the ONLY reason.
See
“Initial Brief of Appellant Steve
Wilson
” (16 pages).
Fox answers with 42 pages, “Answer Brief of Appellee” . The final response from Wilson can be found in
the 17 page,
“Reply Brief of Appellant Steve Wilson”.
|
|
