Business & Tech

Judge Dismisses Former Prosecutor's Suit Against Carroll Co. Times

The judge said there was not proof of actual malice in the newspaper's reporting.

by Brandi Jefferson

An Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former state prosecutor against a local newspaper, alleging a reporter made false claims about him in an article.

David Daggett sued the Carroll County Timesalleging the newspaper falsely reported that he had made false statements while testifying in a murder trial, causing him to suffer humiliation, depression and financial loss, the Daily Record reported.

The allegations against the Times stemmed from testimony Daggett gave during a trial for the 2010 murder of Jerememiah DeMario, 25, who was stabbed to death outside his home in Hampstead. 

Interested in local real estate?Subscribe to Patch's new newsletter to be the first to know about open houses, new listings and more.

As part of its coverage, the Carroll County Times reported that Daggett testified that the police did not call him after DeMario’s body was discovered, according to the Record. The Times reported that it had phone records indicating  Daggett had a phone conversation with a police sergeant who was at the scene on the night of the stabbing, Sept. 14, 2010.

In its decision, issued July 25, the Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Pamela L. North wrote that, when read in the context of the entire hearing transcript, it was possible Daggett thought the question “… did you ever get any calls … from investigators with questions about the Jeremiah DeMario homicide” pertained to questions specifically about Miranda rights.

Interested in local real estate?Subscribe to Patch's new newsletter to be the first to know about open houses, new listings and more.

When he answered “not to my knowledge, no,” North wrote, Daggett may have intended to say that he did not receive a call specifically about Miranda rights.

However, she wrote, “Even if Plaintiff thought he answered truthfully,” the court’s decision reads, “His answer was a false statement to any listener." 

In his position as a public official, Daggett had to show that theTimes acted with “actual malice,” defined by the Supreme Court as something published knowing it was false or exercising reckless disregard for the truth.

In a brief decision, North wrote that the paper’s diligence verifying that Daggett had received a call from the police showed there was no malice and dismissed Daggett’s claims.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

More from Eldersburg