SHREVEPORT – A state appeals court has affirmed a trial court dismissal of a Louisiana man’s defamation lawsuit against ABC News and remanded it to a Caddo Parish court, on the subject of determining attorney’s fees and costs.
Louisiana Second District Court of Appeals judges Jefferson R. Thompson, Jeff Robinson and Craig O. Marcotte upheld the trial court’s judgment in favor of ABC News (doing business as “ABC News Productions” and “20/20 News Magazine”), and against plaintiffs Hal Carter and Dream Creations, LLC.
Robinson authored the Court’s opinion in this case.
“On Monday, Nov. 6, 1989, the bodies of Julie Grissom, her father, William “Tom” Grissom and her eight-year-old nephew, Sean Grissom, were discovered at Tom Grissom’s home in Shreveport. All three had been murdered. Hal Carter, who was a Shreveport attorney at the time and who had recently ended his romantic relationship with Julie Grissom, quickly became a suspect in the Grissom murders, or as Carter describes himself, the ‘prime suspect.’ Carter, who was never arrested in the Grissom murders, moved to Washington near the end of 1989 in an attempt to escape the cloud of suspicion which had enveloped him,” Robinson said.
“In August of 1990, Danny Rolling, a former Shreveport resident, murdered five college students in their apartments over three separate incidents in Gainesville, Fla. Rolling was ultimately convicted of the murders of Sonja Larson, Christina Powell, Christa Hoyt, Tracy Paules and Manny Taboada. Shortly before his execution in 2006, DR confessed to the Grissom murders through a written statement, in which he wrote, in part, that ‘HAL CARTER, Julie Grissom’s former fiancé is 100% INNOCENT – TOTALLY PURE of that crime.’ After several years in Washington, Carter moved to Atlanta, Ga. to practice law again. Carter spent nearly a decade attempting to build what is best described as a ‘brand’ out of his role as a ‘prime suspect’ in the Grissom murders. He even formed a business entity, Dream Creations, LLC, in 2019 to create and market products based on his life experiences following the Grissom murders.”
Robinson explained that on April 9, 2021, the ABC television network news show “20/20” presented a two-hour program about Rolling and the murders he had committed, which was titled, “The Devil in Gainesville” (DIG). KTBS, Shreveport’s ABC affiliate station, invited Carter to participate in a live interview during the broadcast of DIG. Most of the two-hour DIG program focused on the Gainesville murders, as the Grissom murders were not mentioned until 54 minutes into the telecast, just before a commercial break. However, Carter said his connection to the Grissom case was never mentioned on the broadcast.
“Near the end of the program, DIG informed viewers that shortly before his execution, Rolling confessed to the Grissom murders. Video of Rolling’s pastor reading part of his confession was shown. Carter was never mentioned at any point during the program. Aggrieved at being overlooked by ABC when DIG was produced and broadcast, Carter and Dream Creations filed a 75-page petition for damages against ABC News, Inc. (doing business as ‘ABC News Productions and ‘20/20 News Magazine’). KTBS, LLC (doing business as ‘KTBS Channel 3’) was also made a defendant even though it was not named in the case caption,” Robinson said.
“On April 19, 2022, Carter and Dream Creations filed an 85-page amended petition [in a Caddo Parish trial court]. Among the exhibits attached to the petitions were the cover and an excerpt from Carter’s book, ‘Trials by Fire Life Lessons’; local newspaper articles about the Grissom murders and investigation; and Rolling’s written confession. The petitions alleged that Carter had been the primary or prime suspect in the Grissom murders. The plaintiffs also claimed that shortly before Rolling’s execution, Carter helped orchestrate Rolling’s confession to the Grissom murders.”
The plaintiffs alleged that ABC defamed them, by falsely leading viewers to believe Rolling had been the only suspect in the Grissom murders, which made Carter appear to be lying about being the prime suspect.
The plaintiffs maintained that because of Carter’s emotional state following the telecast of DIG, he canceled the launch of his book, motivational speeches and life coaching for the foreseeable future.
ABC and KTBS filed exceptions of no cause of action and special motions to strike in the summer of 2022 – which were opposed by the plaintiffs in a response motion. Attached to the response motion were “(1) Videos and on-air scripts produced by KTBS through discovery; (2) Three KTBS website pages that Carter had found by Googling “KTBS Hal Carter stories”; (3) An affidavit from a friend of Carter about his evaluation of DIG; and (4) Carter’s affidavit.
The plaintiffs also sought discovery to determine why ABC “went to such lengths to cut him out of [DIG] and defame Hal Carter.”
“Following a hearing on the exceptions, the trial court rendered judgment on Jan. 30, 2023, sustaining the exceptions of no cause of action and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. The special motions to strike were denied as moot because the exceptions of no cause of action had been sustained,” Robinson stated.
“On May 11, 2023, Carter and Dream Creations filed a motion for appeal. On that same date, they also filed a motion for leave of court to amend and supplement the amended petition, which was denied. ABC and KTBS have answered the appeal, to seek a reversal of the part of the judgment denying the special motions to strike as moot.”
In their appeal analysis, Robinson and his colleagues concluded that the broadcast not mentioning Carter did not constitute defamation.
“DIG was not an exhaustive treatment of the Grissom murders or even the Gainesville murders. Noted filmmaker Ken Burns was not at the helm directing an in-depth PBS documentary miniseries that was broadcast over several nights. Rather, it was a two-hour program that essentially focused on the Gainesville murders and their aftermath,” Robinson said.
“KTBS did not defame Carter by airing his interview in conjunction with the broadcast of DIG or by not giving him the opportunity for a second interview to correct what Carter thought may have been omissions or false statements in DIG. Carter would have been using his own words during the interview, and the decision not to offer a second interview does not even meet the first requirement of a statement for a defamation. The exceptions of no cause of action were properly granted against the defamation claim.”
Similarly, the appeals court found that the claims for intentional infliction of emotion distress and a business invitee were also properly dismissed by the trial court.
“We note that in their opposition to the exceptions of no cause of action and the motions to strike, the plaintiffs admitted that they did not have sufficient evidence to believe that KTBS intended to produce severe mental distress. We also note that the appellants state in their brief that KTBS’s actions and inactions appear to be intentional infliction of emotional distress. The exceptions of no cause of action were correctly granted concerning the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress,” Robinson said.
“The appellants invite this court to expand the duty owed to business invitees as stated in Morales v. Magnolia Chemicals & Solvents, Inc. to include a duty of care imposed on KTBS to protect Carter from mental, credibility or reputational harm resulting from KTBS’s broadcasts on April 9, 2021. We decline the invitation. Appellants contend this is ‘what the law of Louisiana should be.’ We disagree. KTBS owed no heightened duty of care to Carter when it invited him for an interview or when it did not invite him for another interview to defend himself following the broadcast of DIG. The exceptions of no cause of action were properly granted as to any business invitee claims.”
In addition to upholding the trial court’s judgment, the appeals court further concluded that the defendants’ special motions to strike should have been granted and not declared moot, and that the case should be remanded to determine attorney’s fees and costs in favor of the defendants.
Court of Appeal, Second District for the State of Louisiana case 23-30386
First Judicial District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana case 636-470
From the Louisiana Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com