Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Last month a LaPorte County jury found the auditor did not make liable statements about the county attorney.
Timothy Stabosz made several public comments about Shaw Friedman suggesting he had engaged in illegal and unethical behavior leading up to the 2020 election.
Stabosz was elected auditor of LaPorte County and, at the request of the LaPorte County commissioners, Friedman served as the LaPorte County attorney.
Friedman filed a lawsuit against Stabosz alleging his statements constituted defamation.
The LaPorte Circuit Court initially denied Stabosz’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed its decision in 2022.
The Indiana Supreme Court denied the transfer of the case in 2023. Justices Mark Massa and Geoffrey Slaughter voted to grant the petition.
After a week-long jury trial, a verdict was returned in Stabosz’s favor. Friedman’s complaint requested over $5 million in damages.
“After more than three years of litigation, nearly three dozen depositions, countless pretrial motions, trips to the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court, and a weeklong jury trial, we are incredibly grateful to the court, the court staff, and the jury who gave my client the opportunity to present his case and receive a fair and just verdict,” Andrew Jones, attorney for Stabosz, said, “The right to freely criticize public figures is sacrosanct, and I am so proud of the case my team and I presented to such an attentive and intelligent jury. The 1st Amendment is alive and well in LaPorte County, Indiana.”
R. William Jonas Jr., attorney for Friedman said they believe the jurors were confused by the court’s instruction on “actual malice.”
“While the First Amendment is important, so is the reputation that a lawyer has worked for four decades to build. We demonstrated that former LaPorte County Attorney Shaw Friedman – who is one of just four Indiana SuperLawyers recognized for local government law – served with honor and integrity and we vigorously take exception to the defendant’s unfounded and outrageous claims of “corruption,” “fraud” and “fleecing the county” that go way beyond the bounds of harsh political criticism and commentary,” Jonas said.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.