It's How You Say It

Michael Corbitt and Sam Giancana wrote a book about crime and corruption. HarperCollins published it, judging the non-fiction manuscript to be a potential money-maker. Everyone loves true stories about the Mob, about all the greed and dirty deals that make crime go around. Now the Illinois Supreme Court has declared that the authors are not quite so free as they might have thought when they sat down to compose their sordid tale.

The name of attorney Patrick Tuite came up in the book, in connection with a fix put in for Outfit members' trials. Corbitt and Giancana never said outright that Tuite got paid off, they only reported that the Outfit believed that Tuite had the deal arranged. They reported what their sources implied. How else to make the story complete than to relay what was said by those involved? An author is supposed to fill in the gaps, to set the stage, and the reader needs this sort of background information to understand what was going on and put other information in context.

Tuite turned around and sued the authors, claiming that his name was defamed by this implication that he had bribed a judge or something equally reprehensible. Why, Mr. Tuite only helped Joey Aiuppa's lawyers prepare for a sentencing hearing after the conviction, that's what he did for the one million dollar fee. That's a lot of billable hours, there, even for a high priced attorney, but we're all supposed to believe that a million dollars changed hands for this perfectly legitimate reason.

The authors relied on an old standard, the "innocent construction" rule that was used in the past to block libel suits where the statements in question could be interpreted as non-defamatory. The Illinois Supreme Court judges declared that the statements in question were not the least bit innocent and had no non-defamatory interpretation at all. Go on, there, Mr. Tuite, and press on with your libel case, the Justices said.

As for the "innocent construction" rule, that stays in place, and news organizations and HarperCollins breathed a sigh of relief. The Chicago Tribune, Sun-Times and television stations knew what was at stake if Tuite's lawyers had their way and got the rule lifted. A decision like that would have been devastating to the entire news industry, making it almost impossible to report the word on the street or to quote an unnamed source.

Expect Patrick Tuite to be back in court soon, pressing his libel case. And expect that publishing house lawyers will be more cautious when there's a contract in process for a true crime book. Once burned, twice shy, they say, and authors are going to be under pressure to properly parse their participles and turn a phrase. No hearsay allowed in a court of law, and soon it won't be allowed in print.

One million dollars to advise Aiuppa's lawyers. Sure, and I just fell off the turnip wagon.