The Vineyard Gazette - Martha's Vineyard News | Man Facing Heroin, Sex Offense Charges
Colin and Laura Rideout have been convicted of murder; Paul Tucci was acquitted on The next day, Laura is seen at the Walmart on Hudson Avenue in Rochester with her boyfriend Paul Tucci. Meet the Almost-Forgot. Until one day, in the pet food aisle of Shop-Co, they run into the parents of Paul Tucci, Kate's high school boyfriend—the father Josie has never met. If Mr. and. Alena and Paul Tucci bring a rich cultural background to that we meet, Saturday mornings at Manistee Farmer's Market, honey, really good milk, so many.
Erin Moriarty of "48 Hours" has a Sunday Profile: Actor Stanley Tucci is living them. A photo shoot for L'uomo Vogue, the Italian men's fashion magazine "My life is like this every day"capped off an amazing year. Tucci had starring roles in two major movies, including one opposite Meryl Streep, and a Golden Globe nomination for his role in "The Lovely Bones.
First, "The Lovely Bones," and the part that Tucci almost turned down. Tucci plays George Harvey, a non-descript middle-aged man who is, in fact, a cunning serial killer. His victims are women, including the precocious daughter of one of his neighbors.
So I was really reticent. I talked to my wife about it. Her first reaction was, 'No, you can't do that. But then, I realized that there was a really beautiful story there in the script, and in the book of course, and I wanted to be a part of it. Tucci had to physically transform himself, adding a paunch and even bleaching his body hair.
DreamWorks "I changed the color of my eyes," he said. He had to look like this sort of an Everyman in America in And that person didn't look like me! He spoke three different languages or something. I would say that he's actually closer to me than the other guy. Sony Pictures "Without question.
At a party, Meryl said to me a few years ago, 'Do you want to play my husband in this movie that Nora's gonna do? When Tucci - who grew up in a suburb north of New York City - began his career in the early s, he was offered the same part over and over again. During the fall and summer ofPerry was covering the meetings of a special committee which was investigating Portland's Civil Service Commission.
On September 11,during a meeting of this committee, a member of the Civil Service Commission stated that the Commission had previously covered up the fact that a police officer had cheated on a promotional exam. Perry began investigating that charge the next day. During the ensuing days, she contacted several people and eventually acquired a copy of the Menario memo from Robert Curley.
Sometime prior to her acquisition of the memo, Curley received Menario's concurrence that it was alright to give it to her. Based on the Menario memo and her investigative efforts, Perry wrote an article entitled "Cheating Charge Disclosed" which appeared in the "Evening Express" on September 19, The article raised questions not only about Tucci's behavior, but also about the handling of the matter by the Civil Service Commission.
Several articles and editorials subsequently appeared in the "Portland Press Herald" and the "Evening Express" essentially repeating the theme of the first article.
Having been a police officer when the alleged cheating incident occurred and a City Councilor when the articles and editorials appeared in the newspapers, Tucci concedes that he is a public official within the meaning of New York Times, U. Inhabitants of the Town of Livermore Falls, A. Plaintiff's burden is a heavy one; actual malice must be proved with "convincing clarity".
New York Times, U. The New York Times standard of actual malice has a specialized inquiry which focuses on defendant's attitude towards the truth or falsity of the publication rather than on defendant's ill will or animosity against plaintiff. Where, as here, the plaintiff claims that defendants published with reckless disregard of the truth, he must show by evidence of "convincing clarity" that these defendants "in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication.
Before addressing the propriety of entering summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of actual malice, we must next set forth the applicable law relative to summary judgment.
Judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must not resolve any issues of fact; rather, it must determine whether there is any issue of material fact from which a jury could find for the non-moving party.
Where, as here, a defendant in a libel action moves for summary judgment on the issue of actual malice, the motion should be granted only, if upon viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, there exists no genuine issue of fact from which a jury could reasonably find with "convincing clarity" that defendants acted with actual malice.
Consumer Union of the United States, Inc. Pietsch, 98 Idaho, P. Although the facts are viewed against the "convincing clarity" standard, this does not work a change in traditional summary judgment procedure.
The standard convincing clarity against which the evidence is examined is dictated by New York Times, while the manner of examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party is the same as in all determinations of motions for summary judgment.
In light of those principles, we now review the presiding justice's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the issue of actual malice. In doing so, we do not accord deference to the presiding justice's determination. Rather, we must independently review whether the evidence which is either undisputed or, if disputed, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff raises a genuine issue of fact from which a jury could reasonably find that actual malice was established with convincing clarity.
See MacGuire, P. The underlying material facts in this case are essentially undisputed. Tucci does not claim that defendants knew in fact the publications were false. Rather, he argues that, on this record, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants published with reckless disregard of the truth because "there [were] obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.
Tucci principally contends that an inference of malice could be drawn from Menario's expressed dislike of Tucci; Menario's expressed disapproval with the Civil Service Commission's handling of the matter; and an inference that Curley disliked Tucci.
Because different circumstances attend the publishings by defendant Menario and defendant Gannett, we will analyze them separately. Menario allegedly libeled Tucci when the Menario memo appeared in the newspapers. Tucci has not presented any evidence nor made any claim that events occurring after Menario originally wrote the memo could have caused Menario to entertain serious doubts as to the truthfulness of the statements in the Menario memo. Therefore, we must focus on the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the memo in to determine whether a jury could find that Menario published the memo with actual malice.
At his deposition, Menario had little recollection of the events occurring in apart from what was written in the Menario memo. The Menario memo in conjunction with Curley's deposition reveal the following undisputed facts.
On the day Menario returned to work from a week vacation, Curley and Dutton gave Menario a copy of a letter that they had sent to the Civil Service Commission, alleging that Tucci had cheated while taking the promotional exam.
The letter detailed their grounds for the charge and why they did not take immediate action. At this point, Menario discussed the charges with them and suggested that they attempt to confirm the charges by comparing Tucci's answers with those of Karl Learned, the man from whom Tucci allegedly cheated.
Dutton performed the comparison and later reported the results to Menario. The comparison showed that, out of questions, both answer sheets had 47 identical correct answers and 27 questions were answered by the same incorrect alternative. Menario later wrote in the Menario memo that "having seen the analysis of the two score cards I was convinced beyond doubt that cheating took place". Actual malice cannot be inferred solely from Menario's dislike of Tucci.
There must be evidence tending to show with convincing clarity that Menario entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the matter asserted. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the added fact that Menario knew Curley disliked Tucci would not support a jury finding of actual malice on the record in this case. Here there were two sources of information. Even if Curley was biased, there is nothing in the record to show that Dutton was unreliable or biased.
Menario discussed the allegations of cheating with both sources and he read the letter sent by both of them to the Civil Service Commission, alleging that cheating had occurred. He did not rest on their representations alone; he asked them to prepare a comparison of the tests.
This task was performed by Dutton, the reliable or at least untainted source.
Surveillance video in Rideout murder case released
Tucci does not challenge the results of the test comparison. Rather, he claims that Menario did an incomplete investigation by not having the test analyzed by expert statisticians. In the context of this case, Tucci takes nothing by this claim. On its face, the results of the test comparison seem suspicious such that the results would not have been an obvious reason for Menario to entertain doubts as to the truth of the allegations.
Although he may have been biased, there is simply no evidence on this record from which a jury could infer with convincing clarity that Menario published the Menario memo with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the matter.
Accordingly, we conclude that the presiding justice properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Menario. B Defendant Gannett It is undisputed that, prior to publishing the allegedly defamatory matter, Gannett undertook the following investigation. After learning of the alleged cheating incident at the meeting of the special committee which was investigating Portland's Civil Service Commission, Nancy Perry began her investigation in earnest by contacting Curley.
Surveillance video in Rideout murder case released | rhein-main-verzeichnis.info
By the time she finished speaking with him, she knew that Tucci had been involved in an alleged cheating incident; that Menario had prepared a memo detailing the incident; and that Curley had a copy of the Menario memo. Because Curley was in Boston at this time, she contacted Menario to obtain a copy of the memo and to inquire as to his recollections of the matter. He told her that he vaguely remembered the incident, but he did not remember drafting the Menario memo. They did not discuss details because of his lack of memory.
He did tell her that she could possibly find it in the attic of City Hall, if it existed. Continuing her investigation, she received permission to search for the Menario memo in the attic of City Hall, but her search yielded nothing.
After descending from the attic, she went to the office of the City's Corporation Counsel and received permission from him to search the files of the Civil Service Commission. Although she did not find that Menario memo, she observed some documents pertaining to a police promotional exam taken on August 6, She took notes concerning these documents; however, she did not realize their significance until later when she obtained the Menario memo.
Having been thus far unsuccessful in her attempt to find the Menario memo, she called Curley and asked him if he would provide her with a copy of it. He consented and they agreed to meet that Friday when he returned to Cape Elizabeth, Maine. Curley met with Perry that Saturday September 15,instead of Friday, at her office in Portland and he gave her a copy of the Menario memo. After reading the Menario memo she realized the significance of the documents observed by her at City Hall.
Before leaving her office that day, Curley once again told her that he was convinced that Tucci had cheated on the examination. On September 18,Perry contacted John McDonough, a member of the Civil Service Commission inand he told her that he remembered allegations of cheating being lodged against Tucci.
He further told her that the charges were dropped because it was Tucci's word against that of the monitors and that the Personnel Department should have taken immediate action at the examination. The next day she culminated her research by speaking with Tucci. Although he denied having cheated on the examination, he did not deny that accusations of cheating had been made against him.
Tucci does not dispute that Gannett conducted its investigation as described by Nancy Perry's affidavit.
However, he does claim that the investigation was inadequate in the circumstances and, therefore, the jury could infer actual malice in the New York Times sense. Specifically, in light of Menario's expressed dislike of Tucci, his disapproval of the Civil Service Commission's handling of the matter and the fact that this was not "hot news", he claims that the record raises an issue of fact with respect to actual malice because: Actual malice may be inferred when an investigation is grossly inadequate in the circumstances.
Especially when the matter is not "hot news", a more thorough investigation is expected. Reader's Digest Association, F. However, even if there is an error that might have been prevented by a more thorough investigation, courts have held the evidence insufficient to support a jury verdict of actual malice where the defendant had no doubts about the accuracy of the information and the sources appeared reliable.