Judge says he has no authority to force retraction of lawyer's press comments about cops
Image from Shutterstock.com.
A federal magistrate judge has ruled that he has no authority to force a retraction by a civil rights lawyer who criticized Kentucky State Police officers.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram of London, Kentucky, refused Thursday to require Chicago lawyer Elliot Slosar to take back his statements, WDRB reports.
“The relief sought strikes the court as extraordinary in that it would mandate not only that plaintiff’s counsel speak, but dictate the content of the speech and manner of publication,” Ingram wrote. “The complete lack of authority supporting such an extraordinary request requires its denial.”
Ingram also said it was not necessary to admonish Slosar to adhere to lawyer ethics rules in future public statements because he has already agreed to do so.
Lawyers for police officers being sued by Slosar had sought the retraction for comments in a different case in which Slosar blamed his client’s arrest on corrupt or incompetent state police officers.
One of two officers singled out for criticism by Slosar is a defendant in the case before Ingram.
Slosar made the comments in a December press conference and news release after then-Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin pardoned Slosar’s client, Patrick Baker.
Slosar defended the pardon of his client, who had been convicted of reckless homicide for participating in a home invasion. Critics had pointed out that Baker’s brother had hosted a fundraiser for Bevin.
Slosar said DNA evidence indicated that Baker did not commit the crime, according to coverage at the time by the Louisville Courier Journal. He also said two state police officers should be investigated for alleged misconduct in Baker’s case.
The same two officers were defendants in two lawsuits accusing them of framing four people, Slosar said.
In fact, Slosar had abandoned claims against one of the officers, lawyers who requested the retraction said. They argued that Slosar’s statements were misleading and prejudicial to potential jurors.
In denying the request, Ingram criticized lawyers on both sides for arguments that were “filled with acerbic finger-pointing and condemnation.”
“The court advises that, going forward in this case, the finger-pointing and criticism contained in the motion and response serve only to undermine the presentation of the merits of the case to the court,” Ingram wrote.
