The “Baby Body Parts” trial of activist and journalist David Daleiden is complete. The jury found undercover journalism unlawful. They are declaring that secret filming is now illegal. The result is that undercover journalism leaves actual journalists open to massive damages regardless of the accuracy and truthfulness of the reporting.
Related: Texas DA drops charges against Daleiden, Merritt re PP body-parts videos
Freedom of the press?
Undercover journalism
Planned Parenthood received an award of almost $2 million. That is their compensation award for the filming. The corporation was alleging David Daleiden secretly recorded Planned Parenthood executives. The executives were negotiating to sell baby body parts. Planned Parenthood originally sought $20 million in damages against Daleiden and his colleagues.
Peter Breen, a lawyer for Mr. Daleiden, said the judgment is a direct threat to undercover journalism in California and across the country. Mr. Breen blamed Judge William Orrick’s directions to the jury for the verdict. Mr. Breen said,
“Undercover Journalism now comes with a $2 million price tag… The judge should have told them that Mr. Daleiden’s filming was protected by the First Amendment. Instead, he told them the First Amendment is no defense, which is outrageous and not the law. When you have a series of unfair rulings, you can’t expect a fair verdict…”
The Judge told the jury in advance of their verdict that he has decided to find Daleiden guilty. He told them he was acting to convict Daleiden of trespass during his undercover journalism. Daleiden previously lost an attempt to have Judge Orrick removed from the case. Daleiden’s team was alleging the judicial biased against the defendants.
What happened
Daleiden recorded Planned Parenthood executives stating they made changes in abortion techniques. They are on tape saying the reason for that was to ensure better and more profitable body parts were retrieved for sale. His attorneys argue that the recordings took place in public places, such as restaurants and hotels. They assert in those locations the participants have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Planned Parenthood sued Daleiden and his colleagues after they released the secretly recorded videos. The videos showed Planned Parenthood executives haggling over the sale and price of baby body parts. The body parts came from their work, the abortions done in their facilities.
The claims
Planned Parenthood made a series of claims. They claimed Daleiden had caused damages through invasion of privacy with the undercover filming. Planned Parenthood claimed fraud because they set up a false buying company. They claimed a RICO conspiracy.
Their assertion was that a number of people worked together in the project. RICO is the acronym for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. RICO is a United States federal law. It provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
The jury found for Planned Parenthood in all their claims. Daleiden and his colleagues Sandra Merritt, Albin Rhomberg, Adrian Lopez and Troy Newman, denied all the charges.
Conclusion
A significant fact omitted in this case is that Planned Parenthood did not sue Daleiden for defamation or slander. The organization’s lawyers did not state that the videos were inaccurate or exaggerated. What they claimed was they were filmed as a result of trespassing and other illegal methods. They do not make the case that what they were engaged in is legal, moral or ethical.
The organization is claiming Daleiden and his colleagues are guilty of fraud for setting up a fake company. They say they set up false identifications to open business conversations with Planned Parenthood executives. It is hard to grasp that setting up a shell business company for the purpose is illegal? Large companies do it all the time to keep potential property owners from knowing who an actual buyer may be.
The defendants argue they were doing in journalism and revealing criminal activity. This has been a political show trial. Are we really going to let this decision stand? The bottom line is, unless this decision is reversed on appeal, reporting the truth is not a sufficient defense. The jury finds Planned Parenthood is the Victim. This seems a very significant chilling of freedom of the press. Yet the media is not coming to defend freedom of the press, why?