X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a slander suit brought by former California Congressman Gary Condit for statements made by columnist Dominick Dunne about the disappearance and death of Chandra Levy. Southern District of New York Judge Peter K. Leisure said Tuesday that Condit has asserted enough facts to survive dismissal, based on comments Dunne made about the Levy case on three national talk shows and at dinner parties where he regaled guests with rumors concerning the congressman. “This action brings the Court to the tire-streaked intersection of the right of one citizen to protect his reputation and the right of another citizen to speak freely,” Judge Leisure began in Condit v. Dunne, 02 Civ. 9910. Levy’s disappearance from her Washington, D.C., apartment in May 2001 was followed by an acknowledgment by Condit that he was a friend of the 24-year-old Bureau of Prisons employee. Her body was found in a city park a year after she disappeared. There was widespread speculation that Condit and Levy had been romantically involved and that he was being investigated in her disappearance. Condit was later exonerated of any involvement in her death. Dunne, a special correspondent for Vanity Fair magazine, appeared on a syndicated radio talk show hosted by Laura Ingraham in December 2001. He told the audience that he had spoken with a “horse whisperer” from California who had information about Levy’s fate. The information, Dunne said, was that Condit frequented parties at Middle Eastern embassies in Washington for which young women had been procured and, at one of these gatherings, let it be known that he wanted to get rid of Levy because she was threatening to go public with certain information about Condit. The source, Dunne said, also reported that Levy was later put on a plane and dumped into the Atlantic Ocean. Dunne said that he could not vouch for the authenticity of the information. Nonetheless he said later in the interview, “And, you know, if it is indeed true that [Condit] is a welcomed guest at the Middle Eastern embassies, I mean what is a guy on the House Intelligence Committee doing at those embassies?” Dunne repeated these stories at dinner parties in California and New York. He then went on Entertainment Tonight Online and “Larry King Live” to report that Condit rode with both the Hell’s Angels and another motorcycling group, and that he thought Levy may have been taken away on a motorcycle by one of Condit’s friends. Following the discovery of Levy’s remains in Washington’s Rock Creek Park in May 2002, Dunne told the Boston Herald that “the discovery of her body doesn’t let Congressman Gary Condit off the hook.” He was quoted in USA Today as saying, “I don’t think [Condit] killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen.” Condit filed suit in December 2002 for slander seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. Condit opposed Dunne’s motion to dismiss by claiming the allegations made by the “horse whisperer” were false and that Dunne had defamed him by republishing the falsehoods. Dunne argued that his statements were not actionable because they amounted to speculation, theories, opinions and “musings” about the case. Judge Leisure said that the Dunne statements on the Laura Ingraham show “can be reasonably interpreted as constituting false assertions of fact.” “Defendant associated plaintiff with an alleged plot, described in detail, to kill Ms. Levy by dropping her from a plane into the Atlantic Ocean, which was alleged to have been carried out in the presence of an Arab procurer who provided the sexual services of young women at Middle Eastern embassies frequented by plaintiff,” Leisure said. “In addition, defendant describes his subsequent contact with the FBI and his efforts to assist in the investigation of the accusations reported by the horse whisperer.” ‘MEDIA FRENZY’ RATIONALE Despite Dunne’s claim that he was offering surmises amidst a nationwide “media frenzy” on a talk show, where people are not necessarily tuning in to hear the facts, Judge Leisure said “the statements can be interpreted as explicit republications of actual, detailed, facts.” Leisure then said Dunne’s assertion that his statements were mere opinions based on “disclosed facts” is “incorrect” because he “republished false statements of fact” and is therefore not exempt from a slander claim. Dunne had also argued that he gave “signals” on the Laura Ingraham show to make it clear he was only offering speculation and opinions, including qualifiers such as “I can’t vouch for this” and “if he indeed is involved.” But Leisure said Dunne’s argument is “belied by the facts and the law.” The judge said Dunne “does appear to vouch” for the statements at certain points of the interview and that the “tone” of his exchange with Ingraham “appears to attempt to lend credit to the story.” Dunne’s “partial attempts to distance himself from the allegations” do not merit dismissal of the claims, the judge said. The judge went on to rule that the quotes from Dunne in Entertainment Tonight Online and his statements on “Larry King Live” and at the dinner parties sustain a defamation claim. The judge dismissed the claims based on quotes in the two newspapers, finding that they “do not declare or imply false assertions of fact.” L. Lin Wood and Katherine M. Ventulett of Atlanta and Mark E. Goidell of Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid in Melville, N.Y., represent Condit. Laura R. Handman and Samuel M. Leaf of Davis Wright Tremaine represent Dunne.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.