Conroy Loses Appeal in Suit Against Spitzer

Former Assemblyman Mickey Conroy tried to interfere with political rival Todd Spitzer’s free-speech rights by suing him for calling Conroy a sexual harasser during their campaign for an Orange County supervisor seat, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

Conroy, a Republican from Orange, was reprimanded in 1994 by the Assembly Rules Committee, which found that he had violated the Assembly’s sexual harassment policy in his conduct toward a former intern, Robyn Boyd. A jury in her lawsuit rejected allegations of sexual harassment but found intentional infliction of emotional distress, resulting in a $360,000 payment from the Assembly to Boyd.

Conroy was retired from office by term limits in 1996 and ran unsuccessfully for supervisor. Spitzer, the current supervisor, frequently referred to the harassment case during the campaign, said Conroy had been “found guilty” by the Rules Committee and overstated the amount of taxpayer money spent in the case.

After the election, Conroy sued Spitzer for libel and emotional distress. The suit was dismissed without a trial by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Daniel S. Pratt, who invoked a state law against SLAPP cases--Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation--those designed to chill free speech or other political rights.

As provided by the law, Pratt ordered Conroy to reimburse Spitzer $3,421 for his attorney fees and costs. The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld the ruling Thursday and required Conroy to pay his opponent’s costs of defending the appeal.

The case was a SLAPP because Spitzer’s statements “addressed a matter of public concern--a candidate’s qualifications and conduct in office,” and because Conroy had no likelihood of winning his suit, Presiding Justice David G. Sills said in the 3-0 ruling.

He said some of Spitzer’s statements were true, such as the finding of sexual harassment against Conroy; others were based on reliable sources, such as newspaper accounts of the costs of the harassment case; and the remainder were expressions of opinion, such as Spitzer’s claim that Conroy “has used every trick in the book to postpone his trial until after the election.”

The overstatement of the costs of the case was based on an understandable misreading of news articles and was not libelous against a public figure, who must prove a knowing or reckless falsehood, Sills said. He also said Spitzer’s statement that Conroy was “found guilty” of harassment did not suggest a criminal conviction, as Conroy claimed.

“Even by the late 20th century, not everyone has attended law school--yet--and thus the ordinary person still does not equate the colloquial use of ‘guilty’ with criminal guilt,” Sills said.