State of Ohio vs. Brett McMurphy: Is the Legal Threat of Urban Meyer Legitimate?

A highly controversial story about whether an assistant coach used the word-word in a practice altercation could become the source of a dispute between a major university football program and a leading sports journalist.

According to Urban Hopeer, Ohio State football coach Dan Hope, Dan Hope, his employer is considering the possibility of suing journalist Brett McMurphy of the Stadium. Stadium belongs to a group of companies whose one, Meredith Corporation, also owns Sports Illustrated.

On Tuesday, Stadium published a press article and an accompanying video in which McMurphy reported on statements by LeBron Grimes, father of former US receiver Trevon Grimes, about the circumstances that led his son to be transferred from Ohio State to Florida. According to the report, the main reason for the transfer was an incident in September 2017 between freshmen Trevon Grimes and Zach Smith, then coach of the receivers Ohio State. Smith, who was fired last summer as a result of allegations of domestic violence, allegedly claimed that Grimes was "b —- ass n —–" during a practice then told him, "I should never have recruited you". LeBron Grimes explained to McMurphy that these remarks had pushed his son to insult Smith by saying that he "joked with schoolgirls". Trevon Grimes and Smith also allegedly engaged in a physical altercation, but no one seems to have been hurt.

According to McMurphy, LeBron Grimes first heard of the incident during a phone call with his son. Upset by what he heard, Elder Grimes remembers leaving Florida to visit his son in Ohio. Along the way, Grimes met Dennis Allen, a longtime friend of the family. LeBron Grimes and Allen then saw Trevon Grimes, who repeated his account of the incident.

McMurphy's story goes on to say that he tried to talk to Trevon Grimes, but the young Grimes declined to comment. McMurphy was able to speak with three of Grimes' current teammates in Florida, who would speak with him only on condition of anonymity. The three players remembered that Smith had told them about the n-word incident. In addition, according to LeBron Grimes, Meyer was aware of the incident but took no corrective action.

Meyer, Smith, Ohio State Sports Director Gene Smith, and University President Michael Drake have strongly denied the allegations in McMurphy's report. Drake went on to describe McMurphy's report as "irresponsible, inflammatory and a serious invasion of the privacy of a student athlete and his family, as well as an unfounded attack against the child". 39, coach Meyer. "The story of McMurphy notes these denials." The story also mentions the fact that Grimes In the state of Ohio, Jaylen Harris has banned his roommate from speaking to McMurphy, but Harris issued a statement in which he stated: "At no time have I witnessed any physical altercation or senseless racist remarks." In addition, McMurphy interviewed Eli Goins, a senior senior catcher last season, who recalled that there was a physical altercation without hearing the word-n.

Difficulties to sue McMurphy for defamation

Ohio State would face long odds in any lawsuit against McMurphy. Worse still, the school could inadvertently invoke the risks of discovery before trial by suing McMurphy in court.

If the state of Ohio sincerely believes that the allegations in McMurphy's story are false, the school could sue for libel. A complaint of defamation would come up against very great obstacles. To prove libel, the State of Ohio (and / or Meyer and Smith, if they also pursue a lawsuit), would need to convince the jurors that McMurphy's report was false, detrimental to his reputation and out of court. the scope of a relevant privilege.

For his part, McMurphy argues that he adhered to sound journalistic practices. McMurphy's story carefully avoids describing the allegations as uncontested facts. Instead, the story warns that the allegations stem from what McMurphy learned from the reports, namely interviews with people who claimed to know the alleged incident. McMurphy's story also acknowledges that he interviewed several people, including Trevon Grimes himself, who declined to comment or who, to varying degrees, refuted LeBron Grimes' claims.

A reader may, however, question whether some of McMurphy's sources, including Grimes' father and his Florida team-mates, are biased or unreliable given their affiliation and allegiance to Grimes. These people – most of whom were not eyewitnesses of what happened between Grimes and Smith – also spoke to McMurphy in a reporting context. This means that they were not under oath and therefore could have been lying or exaggerating without fear of criminal perjury charges.

Yet this type of journalistic dynamic is not unique to McMurphy's story. Many "latest news" articles are based on overwhelming stories of people definitely do not neutral. These people may intend to see certain information not only disclosed to the public, but also shaped in a certain light. Sometimes these people are whistleblowers who are truly seeking to repair the wrongs. Other times, they are opportunists seeking attention or retribution.

McMurphy does not hide this aspect of the report from his readers. It provides significant information and context on its sources (including adverse points, such as how LeBron Grimes was arrested almost 20 years ago for assaulting a community college security officer and for a flight under $ 300). McMurphy also points out that LeBron Grimes voluntarily provided information in Facebook messages. One reader might think that Grimes 'willingness and enthusiasm to share documents with McMurphy could reflect Grimes' desire to advertise or avenge a coach who Grimes allegedly abused his son. By informing readers of its sources and possible motivations, McMurphy allows readers to further question the veracity of these sources.

To complete his interviews with witnesses, McMurphy may also have reviewed other reports on the practice of the football in question, as well as emails, texts and other relevant electronic evidence. At this point, McMurphy explains in detail how he filed with the State of Ohio an application for public registration in which McMurphy requested text and other electronic messages from Meyer and the Director of Football Operations, Brian Voltolini, regarding the incident. McMurphy says the state of Ohio has not responded to the request. McMurphy's attempt to evaluate the university's archives suggests that he was responsible for verifying the facts.

Proving what has actually happened in practice also seems difficult. McMurphy's report includes interviews with a number of people proposing contradictory accounts. If Trevor Grimes and the people who had informed McMurphy of Grimes's allegations would be willing to testify under oath and say that Smith was using the word-word, and if Smith and Meyer testified under oath and denied that the word-word was used, the jurors be left with an enigma "they said / they said". There is nothing to indicate that this particular practice was recorded in video or audio format, or that, if it was in one way or another, the alleged remark would be captured on a registration still existing. The jurors might decide to believe one group rather than another. But juries would probably be more inclined to conclude that they really did not know what had happened. Such uncertainty would prevent them from imposing liability.

The fact that Meyer and Smith are well-known personalities would make it even more difficult to sue for libel. Public figures and so-called "limited public figures" (which refer to people who are not generally famous but who are famous in relation to some controversy – such as the one involving the football of the United States). State of Ohio) must prove that the accused acted with "real malice. In this context, the actual malice would require convincing evidence that McMurphy knew that the claims about Smith were false or that McMurphy had indifferently neglected to know whether these assertions were true or false.

Some Buckeyes fans believe that McMurphy has a bias against Ohio State, given that McMurphy has published several negative reports on the Buckeyes football team. A more likely explanation for this pattern is that McMurphy has cultivated well-placed sources related to the program and used them to beat other reporters in the latest news. Moreover, even if we assume that McMurphy is biased, he is an experienced journalist. The idea that he knowingly creates false information or that he unconsciously mocks the veracity of this information seems unlikely. Moreover, the fact that the story was edited and verified by the editors of the Stadium (unlike a social media article or a blog solely examined by the author) suggests that steps have been taken to verify the information contained in the report. story.

Difficulties in suing McMurphy for false light or invasion of privacy

Other potential claims also face long odds. The state of Ohio might insist that McMurphy has engaged in a "false light." This civil fault refers to a statement that is not literally false, but is worded so misleadingly that it undermines the plaintiff's reputation. The school could argue that although McMurphy's story regularly warns the reader of the uncertainty surrounding the allegations, the fact that McMurphy wrote such a lengthy article about the allegations makes them credible and therefore implies that Smith and Meyer are guilty of acts without distinction of race. .

Do not expect such a false claim. On the one hand, writing on allegations does not corroborate them. If journalists could only write about what is definitely true, many major investigations would never be written.

Also note that the title of McMurphy's story is "The Truth-Finding on the Transfer of Trevon Grimes from Ohio to Florida". Although McMurphy probably did not choose the title of the story (the editors normally have this task), the title emphasizes that the story seeks to find the truth, rather to reveal what it is. ;is the truth. McMurphy then writes, "So what is the TRUTH exactly? Everyone has his version. This statement makes it clear that there is controversy over what has happened. The story also ends with the following interrogative statement: "What is the truth? It depends on who you ask. "

The state of Ohio may also consider a privacy claim against McMurphy. The incident involves an attempt to interview students and the resumption of an alleged incident involving a student. Schools generally try to protect the privacy of students.

To rebut a privacy claim, McMurphy would insist that the first amendment protects news reporting on matters that affect the public. Although its players are students, Ohio State football is undoubtedly one of the country's most prominent football programs. Part of the reason for this is that the school benefits from the use of students' intellectual property through lucrative broadcasting agreements and extensive sales of goods and clothing. The Buckeyes fan base rivals, if not eclipses, that of many NFL teams. The program would also have generated revenues of nearly $ 90 million a year and would have been valued at $ 1 billion. The coaching team of the team, led by Meyer, third coach in the history of college football, also has a national audience. And while Smith was an assistant coach at the time of the alleged incident, he has since become a prominent, not to say infamous figure in light of allegations of domestic violence against him. The US Supreme Court has made it clear that the courts are prohibited from preventing the publication of news, even of those that could damage their reputation. This position reflects the way in which the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press. All of these points are in favor of McMurphy's decision to report on these allegations.

The risk of discovery before the trial

If Ohio State sues McMurphy, he could risk using the pre-trial discovery process to compel Meyer and others involved in the Buckeyes program to testify under oath. For an investigative journalist like McMurphy, being able to ask his attorneys to ask Meyer and other Ohio state officials sensitive issues under oath would probably be a gift. He would also like to force the university to send emails, texts and other confidential documents.

Most likely, the school will not take any legal action against McMurphy. Their current approach of denying the underlying charges is one that is likely to remain in effect.

Michael McCann is the legal analyst of SI. He is also Associate Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of New Hampshire and editor and co-author of the Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law. and Court Justice: The story of my fight against the NCAA.