April 30, 2010

The Kansas Supreme Court today reversed the balance of a jury verdict that was awarded to the family of a Wichita man who was incorrectly identified by a Wichita TV station as a suspect in the BTK murders.

A Sedgwick County judge originally awarded Roger Valadez $250,000 for mental suffering, shame and humiliation. The Supreme Court reversed the award, finding "while Valadez provided testimony that he suffered emotional distress, he failed to present evidence that the distress was extreme".

The jury award was based on reporting by station KSNW against Emmis Communications, station owner, and the station's news director. On December 1, 2004, the family claimed the station linked Valadez to the BTK case after a search of Valadez' home. Dennis Rader was arrested two months later in connection with the murders and ultimately pled guilty to 10 counts of first-degree murder.

Regarding the remaining $250,000 that the jury had awarded for emotional distress, Justice Eric S. Rosen said in today’s decision the Court determined that the plaintiff didn’t present sufficient evidence to rise to the level of extreme emotional distress, something that was required for Valadez to recover damages.

Justice Rosen said in the unanimous decision, “It is likely that Valadez would have suffered some emotional distress if the defendants had limited their broadcast to certain accurate information. For example, if the station had reported only that an anonymous tip had connected Valadez to BTK and that a large contingent of police had then moved in during the night to arrest Valadez and to execute a search warrant on his house, the results would likely have included some degree of public embarrassment and emotional difficulty. It was incumbent on Valadez to demonstrate that he suffered severe emotional distress beyond what he experienced as a result of the defendants’ constitutionally protected activities,” Justice Rosen wrote.

“We find that, as a matter of law, the Estate failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the injury suffered by Valadez was extreme within the context of this action for outrage. We do not hold that the media is beyond the scope of tortious outrage actions in all circumstances; we merely hold that under the facts of this case the plaintiff failed to prove an injury severe enough to sustain his claim,” Justice Rosen said in the Court’s decision.