THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, October 8, 1994 TAG: 9410080311
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B2 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Medium: 98 lines
The following letter, dated Oct. 3, was sent to Cole Campbell, editor of The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star, by Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Albert D. Alberi.
SUBJECT: ``Authorities Question Subpoena'' Article
Dear Sir,
Your recent articles on the method of serving subpoenas in a particular obscenity case and on the case itself, call for a response. What was done in this case was done to protect both the prosecution's opportunity and the defendant's right to get a fair trial from a deliberate, concerted effort by your reporters to affect the outcome of the case, not merely report on it.
For months, I have been writing to the Editor of the Pilot complaining of inaccurate - and at times dishonest - reporting by Pilot reporters. In addition, I pointed out that instead of reporting news, your reporters had adopted the practice of trying to control events. None of these letters were printed and only one received a response which consisted of a single call from the Public Editor. I took the time to call and explain what the problems were to Mr. Bill Burke, a newsroom editor. He promised to look into the matter and set up a meeting with the Commonwealth's Attorney. That was never done. I was told that my letters were kept on file but I suspect that the file is the ``circular file.'' As a result, my only recourse was to continue to refuse to speak with Pilot reporters.
Early on in the investigation of local adult bookstores, it quickly became apparent to me that Mike Mather, your reporter, did not like the investigation and wanted to discredit it at that very early stage, even before any charges were being considered. You have not yet told your readers that Mather and the Pilot unsuccessfully sued this Office over my refusal to identify our cooperating citizens while the case was still under investigation. During the only hearing in that lawsuit, your attorney - without any basis in fact - said in open court that I had ``fabricated'' (attorney word for ``lied about'') the legal basis for the refusal. That baseless lawsuit was later dropped.
The use of citizen testimony to establish the community standard was approved by the Virginia Supreme Court in 1974. Our efforts in (Louis) Krbec's case are modeled on this precedent. This so-called ``secret panel'' is not a panel at all. We asked a number of citizens with a lot of community involvement to opine about what the community would hold about the questioned objects. We repeatedly advised that their own opinion was not to be voiced and that they were not to discuss their opinions with the others. All the citizen witnesses in this case are volunteers. The subpoenas were given to people who might have had to take a day off from work and explain their whereabouts to employers.
We held off the required filings to reduce the time your reporter (who was again intent on influencing the outcome of the trial) would have to generate pretrial publicity which would have made it difficult - or impossible - to conduct a trial fair to both sides. When it became clear that the case was going to settle, we concentrated on settlement and overlooked filing the copies. To be clear, the decision to hold off the filings was an error in judgment on my part. The failure to file was an oversight.
Ms. Waltz's article chides me for ending our phone call. I haven't spoken to her in months and have stated why in those letters you have ignored. She knew when she called me that I wouldn't talk to her. I tried to end the conversation politely. I find it noteworthy that Ms. Waltz has attributed remarks to one of our volunteers, Barbara Mastic, to the effect that she ``faulted'' Bob Humphreys and I for putting time on this case. Mrs. Mastic has volunteered to me that she never said any such thing. I sincerely believe that Ms. Waltz put her own words into Mrs. Mastic's mouth. Incidentally, the majority of my time spent in this matter has been addressed to dealing with your baseless lawsuit and not the case itself.
Prosecutor bashing is in vogue in your newsroom. A good criminal justice story by your reporters' standards is one that makes us look inept or evil. We promptly disclosed to defense counsel names of two citizens (from my supposedly packed ``citizen panel'') who were helpful to the defense. Why didn't that get any more than a passing mention? Why was the public told that we negotiated that disclosure when we promptly gave the information to defense outright as we are ethically bound to do?
Some of your reporters are often inaccurate and sometimes downright dishonest. They are intent on influencing events rather than reporting them. They routinely violate virtually all of the principles set out in the Code of Ethics of Sigma Delta Chi, The Society of Professional Journalists. You and your staff condone this behavior. Left to their own devices, they would gladly run the criminal justice system, by deliberately trying cases in the press using inaccurate facts. This is the first time in 21 years I have had such a recurring problem with a news organization. Until you address the situation by some real action, I will continue to refuse to speak with your staff about anything. In closing, I would like to point out that no member of your newsroom staff has seen - or even asked to see the objects that set this entire matter in motion. That alone should cause you some concern.
Sincerely yours,
Albert D. Alberi
Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney MEMO: [For a related story, see page B1 of The Virginian-Pilot for this
date.]
KEYWORDS: LETTER by CNB