Pubdate: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 Source: Bluefield Daily Telegraph (WV) Copyright: 2003 Bluefield Daily Telegraph Contact: http://www.bdtonline.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1483 Author: Associated Press JUDGE TOSSES OUT $10 MILLION VERDICT, SAYING IT WAS EXCESSIVE CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. - A judge has tossed out a $10 million defamation award to a Greene County mechanic who claimed that television station WVIR-TV ruined his reputation by wrongly reporting that cocaine was seized from his property. Saying the jury's verdict was excessive, Circuit Judge Edward L. Hogshire gave Jesse Sheckler until Nov. 21 to decide whether to accept a revised $1 million award or to receive a new trial limited solely to determining damages. The judge said that the station's liability was established in the previous trial, but wrote in his opinion that the jury awarded "a sum far in excess of an amount reasonably calculated to compensate for any proven losses." Sheckler, 52, sued the NBC affiliate over a 2001 news report about a federal drug case in which a reporter erroneously stated that authorities had confiscated cocaine at Sheckler's residence. Sheckler had been charged with helping to finance a drug dealer after having loaned the man thousands of dollars. He was acquitted and has maintained that he was unaware of Samuel Rose's illegal affairs. In May a jury found that WVIR defamed Sheckler and awarded him the full amount sought. Attorneys for WVIR filed a motion to set aside the verdict and argued their case before Hogshire in July. WVIR lawyer Thomas E. Albro received the Nov. 7 opinion Monday. "The court correctly ruled the verdict bore no reasonable relationship to any damages Mr. Sheckler claimed in the case," Albro said. Sheckler declined to comment on Hogshire's ruling. His attorney, Matthew B. Murray, could not be reached for comment. The judge noted that the $10 million award was five times larger than the largest verdict approved by the Virginia Supreme Court in a previous defamation lawsuit. Albro said WVIR hasn't decided whether to seek a further reduction in the award, or to ask the Supreme Court to set aside the entire verdict and order a new trial on all issues. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman