Ira Glass and “This American Life” respond to libel accusations
9:36 pm, April 15th, 2011
A lawyer for the public radio program “This American Life” defended the show’s reporting on a Brunswick judge and dismissed arguments she had been libeled.
Michael M. Conway of Foley & Lardner in Chicago was responding on behalf of the show’s host, Ira Glass, to a letter by David Oedel, a Mercer University law professor representing Judge Amanda Williams.
She was the subject of a “This American Life” broadcast last month that said the practices of her drug court “violate the basic philosophy of all drug courts.”
Oedel earlier this week called the story libelous and in a letter told Glass that Williams was moving ahead with legal action.
In his response to Oedel, provided by the program to the Daily Report on Friday night, Conway noted that speech about public officials was given broad constitutional protections.
“While you challenge [Glass’] opinion that this is the toughest drug court in the country,” Conway wrote, appeals courts in New York, California and Ohio have held that “opinions about judicial behavior are not actionable in defamation.”
Moreover, Conway said, the substance of the reporting was true.
In a separate response, Glass wrote that despite Oedel’s 14-page letter calling the report libelous, “Judge Williams and Mr. Oedel don’t dispute and barely address at all the main two points of my story.”
“Those two main points: 1) Judge Williams’ drug court uses punitive sanctions for relapses and other broken rules which are harsher than any other drug court I – or the national experts interviewed for the show, who were familiar with hundreds of drug courts across the country – could find. … 2) Judge Williams’ court uses a variety of means that other drug courts don’t to encourage defendants to sign up for drug court.”
Read Michael Conway’s letter to Judge Williams’ attorney »
Read Ira Glass’ response to Judge Williams’ claims »
Read David Oedel’s press release and letter to Ira Glass »
Contributor: Jonathan Ringel in Drug Courts | subscribe to rss | 
share
April 18th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
None of this has appeared in the Brunswick News. I thank the Fulton Daily Report for being the only newspaper in Georgia that appears to be interested.
April 19th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
What does Mercer Law School have to say about this. Surely they do not support this rambling threatening letter to Mr. Glass. Does Professor Oedel really teach Constitutional Law?
April 19th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
These letters provide a nice little case-study in the contrasting styles of law professors and practicing attorneys. One is long and meandering,. The other is relatively concise and to the point.
Perhaps Prof Oedel should stick to academia, where brevity is taught in first-year legal writing but practiced nowhere else.
April 19th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
What do Mercer Law School alums have to say about this?
Surely they do not support this rambling threatening letter to Mr. Glass.
Would anyone admit to having attended one of Professor Oedel’s courses?
April 19th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
” Evert thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice. Nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity.” Lord Acton.
Thank You, Ira Glass.
April 20th, 2011 at 6:44 am
I’m not only a law professor, but a lawyer, and one who is respectful of the practice. Mercer doesn’t stand for anything but my work as a law prof. My lawyering independent of Mercer (as in this case) is subject to fair attack on all occasions. My work as a law teacher is subject to fair attack too, but on other grounds and in other settings.
As for the identically-phrased charges of “rambling” in two of the above posts, you might want to review Mr. Glass’ original program to see whether the style of Mr. Glass’ own brand of story-telling is a truer cause. The letter’s lengthy factual corrections track the story itself.
As for further clarifications of the factual and legal dimensions of this matter, I suggest that you stay tuned.
April 20th, 2011 at 11:10 am
As a Mercer Alum and former student of Professor Oedel, I can unequivocally state that he is an excellent professor and of such character that he would not pursue a matter like this without merit.
April 20th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I recall practicing several years ago, before Amanda Williams was Drug Court Judge. In civil cases, both parties involved had an immediate sense of dread when Judge Williams was assigned to their cases as ANY OTHER Judge in South Georgia was considered fair, knowledgeable, and reasonable.
April 20th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Mr. Odel’s comment today that “Mercer doesn’t stand for anything but my work as a law prof . . . My lawyering [is] independent of Mercer (as in this case). . .” appears to demonstrate an intent to misrepresent when he chooses to use MERCER LETTERHEAD to send his “independent of Mercer . . .” letter. It is easy to understand that correspondence sent on his professors- job- only employers stationary would garner more attention and respect. The appropriate (and in my opinion, ethical) choice would have been to send such a letter on his personal letterhead/stationary, clearly showing that he is not speaking on behalf of or with the support of Mercer. No matter who you side with on the Glass story, this does not reflect well on his credibility. Shameful.
April 20th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Hedgie, the letterhead I used IS my personal letterhead, not Mercer’s. When I write on Mercer’s behalf, I write on Mercer’s letterhead, not my personal letterhead. Law professors are not expected to resign their positions and title just to take on an outside representation that will, incidentally, bring them closer to practice and enrich their teaching. When professors appear in all sorts of matters, they ordinarily retain their titles and addresses at their law schools. In the past couple of weeks, for instance, Harvard’s Professor Dershowitz has taken on the representation of the former president of the Ukraine (accused of murder), and the Harvard connection is routinely cited by one and all. Nobody reasonably believes that Harvard is endorsing that representation in any way.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:16 am
I have practiced law the entire time that I have been admitted to the bar in the Brunswick Judicial Circuit. I am a Christian first before anything else, before I am a lawyer or father or even an American, I am a child of the God who I know as a father to the fatherless and one who cares for the least of society. I have been a felony prosecutor in Judge Williams Drug Court and a defense attorney as well before Judge Williams. Judge Williams was even one time on a jury in which I defended a person accused of a serious crime. I would like to first of all say that after reading many of these comments, they seem to feed off one another’s lack of actual experience or understanding of what is actually going on in Court day in and day out where people like myself live and work. Judge Williams is strong woman who has a very special gift in my opinion of discernment and wisdom. She is tough, but I do believe in all good faith that her motivation is genuine concern for people. She is not partial to rich people or to poor people. She is not partial to any race or gender. She is concerned with behaviors and ideas which lead to self destructive behaviors primarily for the people who are caught in the lies and cycles of addiction. She is likewise concerned for the well being of our community. I am not saying that she is any more or less in need of the grace and mercy of God that any other human being that has ever lived is. I have seen a lot of appeals to the Bible in these posts and they appear to me anyway, to be very contradictory in terms of what we as people of faith have an obligation to do if we would choose to rebuke another believer such as Judge Williams. She is a believer and I can tell you that she shares hope in the scriptures that Christ died for her and the world’s sins. So how many of you who are judging her, and claim to be believers, have gone tried to identify some way you believe she has wronged you or others and made your grievance known in a civil, loving manner as is required for the family of faith? Or have you just listened to the rising tide of one sided accusations and thrown your opinions in because its entertaining? I am just speaking to the family of faith here. I realize that those who think that being a God fearing person is nonsense will not feel any sense of responsibility to respect our government through the means and processes put in place for addressing the issues of life. There were many lawyers like myself who would have given a balanced perspective on these issues, but we were not questioned by Mr. Glass and it seems the ones who were, did not have their positive things to say reported as an even handed reporter would seem to be expected to do if journalistic integrity were a superior priority to an outcome oriented story with a pre-determined plot, list of characters and conclusion. Judge Williams is an honorable person, not because she is a Judge, or because she is a loving wife, or because she is a loving mother, not because she is a good lawyer and not because she is an elected official. Judge Williams is worthy of honor because she cares about other people enough to give many of them the love and boundaries they should have received in their homes from a mother and father. But now that the role of lawgiver has been abdicated by so many people in society, we get adults going through their teenage rebellions to authority late in life through the Court system. I am one voice at least who is proud to know that we have a Chief Judge who is more concerned about people than she is bad press. I think many of the people on this blog need to be ashamed of themselves, especially the ones who have spoke in ignorance with appeals to the Bible. John Wetzler-Brunswick Attorney
April 21st, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Your personal letterhead uses your title of Professor at Mercer Law School, your address at Mercer Law School, and your email account at Mercer Law School. You identify yourself as a law school professor in the first paragraph of your letter. Your claim that professors do this as a matter of course is demonstrably wrong. Professor Dershowitz, since you chose to cite him as an example, does not use Harvard or his title of Professor on his personal letterhead or associate himself with Harvard in the text of his letters. (See http://justiceforsholom.org/prof.pdf for an example.)
It is commonly accepted practice within the legal community, as well as a matter of common sense, that if one wants to disassociate oneself from speaking as a representative of an organization, one refrains from doing all of the above and. Further, it is best that one explicitly disclaims that their representation in any way reflects upon that organization or its views or role in the matter. You’re failure to do so is indicative of a transparent attempt to superficially disassociate yourself from Mercer Law School in this matter while attempting to bolster your credibility in the letter by explicitly associating yourself with the law school on your letterhead and your introductory paragraph. While it may not be sanctionable by the law school it is certainly intellectually dishonest.
As an aside, it was amusing to read you comparing yourself to Professor Dershowitz, and Mercer to Harvard, and I must thank you for that as I needed a good laugh today.
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Obviously folks are not acquainted with the difference between the university’s letterhead and a return address. Prof Oedel lists Mercer as part of his return address. If it were university letterhead, the paper would have the seal of the university on it, as well as a different physical address. Just go to http://www.mercer.edu and note the prevalent logo. While we can debate the appropriateness of a professor at a private university is using his work addresses as the mailing address for a personal venture, the ham-handed and misguided attempt by Ira Glass’s lawyers to drag the university to this squabble further supports the proposition that the story on the Brunswick drug court may have taken liberties with the truth for the benefit of sensationalism.
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:27 am
Who cares what the letterhead says?
The focus should be on the content of the original broadcast, Oedel’s response, and Glass’ attorney’s rebuttal.
I listened to the broadcast and was shocked by what was happening in this particular Drug Court. Would this type of court exist in an area where there was media to scrutinize a Judge’s behavior? Doubtful. It seems the Judge presides over her remote fiefdom and dishes out punishment that is inconsistent with recommended standards.
Oedel’s letter was a joke and seemed to be directed by a Judge unaccustomed to anyone questioning her conduct and authority. Someone needed to step up and point out that the Emperor has no clothes and the local lackeys weren’t up to the challenge.
April 24th, 2011 at 10:39 am
I see no valid basis for a lawsuit here. The broadcaster didn’t fabricate the story and seemed to give Judge Williams ample opportunity to contribute her perspective. Judge Williams applies unorthodox and arbitrary punishment in her court. She believes she is acting in the best interest of the community and the individual offenders. Some, like John Wetzler approve of her approach. Ira Glass does not.
Where’s the basis for the lawsuit Prof Oedel?
April 24th, 2011 at 10:48 am
I am a Mercer graduate and a student of Professor Oedel. I keep in contact with Professor Oedel because I found him to be a model of professionalism in and out of the classroom. He was always, and I emphasize “always”, prepared for every class. He entertained healthy discussion, challenged all to think, and opened my eyes to the dynamics of our Constitution. I value his instruction, his insight, and his ability to discern.
I do not know Judge Williams. I read the letters, read what Glass wrote, and read the posts. As a practicing criminal defense attorney representing numerous drug-related defendants, I am ready to try about anything to try to save, literally, some of my addicted clients. Our state has closed almost every state-supported treatment facility, if not all of them. A few non-denominational rehab programs are out there, but for many, my best hope is to keep them in jail until some of their sanity can return. I know very little about any national organization claiming to know how to deal with drug-related defendants in a “one size fits all” approach. None of these organizations has ever showed up in Court to help me or the presiding Judge figure out what might actually help a Defendant. What I do see is what is happening in our courts every day, and I am more than willing to give any Judge who is willing to take a strong stand the benefit of the doubt. It helps me when I counsel my clients – not to roll over and take a plea, but to come to court with some evidence of what each has done to help his/her own case as a human. Drug courts are different because their goals are not the same goals as criminal courts.
One of the issues being downplayed is that all of these drug courts are voluntary. I have never heard of anyone being forced to participate. It is true that it may take some urging from the bench, but a successful completion of these programs creates a real chance for drug addicts. Successful completion of a prison sentence is a contradiction in itself. I urge, badger, encourage, and assist many of my addicted clients to get into a rehab program if one is available instead of a slow, drawn out suicide. Unfortunately, we have no drug courts in this part of the state, but if we did, I would want a tough Judge paired with real, rehabilitative programs that include high expectations from my clients. It may be that Judge Williams is one of those Judges.
The press is not immune from slander or libel as some have suggested. The bar is very high but not insurmountable. Glass is entitled to opinion, and even distortion, but not misrepresentation of facts. Con Law 101.
April 25th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
As a college professor I would expect Oedel to be prepared for class, entertain healthy discussion, and challenge students. That’s a minimal expectation for professors.
As it pertains to this case, what evidence exists that Glass acted with malice?
April 26th, 2011 at 11:20 am
In response to Mr. Parker:
Part of what was addressed in the broadcast was the conditions that may make Judge Williams’ Drug Court less than voluntary. All drug cases are assigned to Judge Williams, and anyone arrested on a drug charge must wait in jail until Wednesday and then attend a Drug Court session before s/he can bond out. Anyone who does not enter the Drug Court program is subject to rigid minimums – mandatory high bond ($15,000 for first offense); mandatory high sentences (10-12 months in PDC for plea; 20-24 months in PDC for trial) – which make the Drug Court look attractive. Either way, s/he will not get another judge for the drug offense – it will be Judge Williams regardless, and Judge Williams makes it very clear that she will not be pleased unless they enter her program.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
It’s so clear that the actions and perspectives of both Judge Williams and her attorney have been influenced by his and her respective personal histories with drug addicts.
Does anyone think that the judgments regarding these particular cases were fair and defensible?
May 1st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Does anyone know what the range of Bond is in Appling and Jeff Davis Counties for a non violent, first offense, drug possession case might be? These two counties are part of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit. Do the bonds set in these types of cases even remotely resemble the $15,000 minimum bond required by Judge Amanda Williams? Mr. Wetzler, since you practice all over the circuit and the State, perhaps you could tell us if any other jurisdiction has minimum bonds. Is it not true that a Judge is required to consider each case individually and to consider a number of factors before setting a bond? Does Judge Williams do that?
May 14th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Reading both letters and the backgrounds of both lawyers, it sounds like we’ve got a seasoned major league hitter going up against a little league coach. I’ll let you figure out who’s who.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
[...] Today I was looking around for something connected to the presidential primary and I stumbled on this critique of this story (listen to the full story [...]