Logan young trial in memphis tennessee

Police initially described the death of the year-old Young as a bloody slaying after a fierce struggle, but quit calling it a homicide a day later. Police Director Larry Godwin said this afternoon Young fell, striking his head on a metal stair railing and died from that injury. Young was convicted last year of bribing a high school football coach to steer a top recruit to the University of Alabama. He was free on bond while defense attorneys appealed the conviction.

No arrests had been made and no suspects had been identified although family members and friends had been questioned. Crime scene crews spent most of two days in Young's house, where police said blood or traces of blood were found in several rooms. Skip to content. Region 8 News Live. Shop Local. Weather Cams. River Stages. Football Friday Night. GR8 Acts of Kindness. Class Act. Great Health Divide. Breast Cancer Awareness. What's On TV. About Us. Meet Our News Team. Smith testified that he did not repeat the statement to anyone, that no one else heard it, and that his estimation of Sullivan was not diminished by the remarks of defendants.

The plaintiff further claims that the defendants defamed him through the news report of his arrest. It is alleged that Russell informed a newspaper reporter of the warrant before it was issued and because of this, the item appeared on WMCTV news on the morning and evening of October 22, The defendants argue that any statements made in connection with the warrant are privileged, that the plaintiff established no connection between what Russell told the newspaper reporter and the broadcasting of the story on television, and that the statements in the television newscast were all derived from police sources, not from the defendants.

We believe that the arguments of defendants have merit. Statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged.

Lambdin Funeral Service, Inc. Griffith, S. Further, there is no evidence to indicate that Russell did more than advise a reporter that an arrest warrant had been issued, a statement which is not defamatory.

The plaintiff testified that he suffered depression as a result of the arrest, but such depression would relate only to the allegations in the arrest warrant. Although one may recover for humiliation and mental anguish, as set forth in Moore v. Bailey, S. Thus, from evidence adduced at trial, the plaintiff was unable to establish that he was damaged by any actionable defamatory remarks.

With reference to the claim of malicious prosecution, it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish that a criminal proceeding has been instituted by the defendants against the plaintiff, that such proceeding terminated in favor of the accused, that there was an absence of probable cause, and that there was malice or a primary purpose other than that of bringing the offender to justice.

Landers v. Kroger Co. A showing of a lack of probable cause will give rise to a rebuttable presumption of malice. Kerney v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. A showing of malice, however, raises no presumption of lack of probable cause.

Cohen v. Cook, 62 Tenn. The defendants contend there is no want of probable cause in this case, based upon the defense of advice of counsel. Generally, probable cause is established where prosecution was instituted with advice of counsel. Lawson v. Wilkinson, 60 Tenn. The prosecuting attorney is counsel whose advice can constitute a defense to an action for malicious prosecution. Mullins v. Wells, 60 Tenn. The plaintiff responds by pointing out that advice of counsel is not a defense where the defendant fails to disclose all the facts which are ascertainable by due diligence.

Klein v. Elliot, 59 Tenn. George, 63 Tenn. In the Klein case, however, it was held that there was evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant had not made full disclosure to the district attorney.

In Mitchell, the defendant brought forward all the facts known to him. In neither case did the Court concern itself with the scope of the personal investigation made by the defendants. Here the plaintiff does not argue that the defendants misstated or withheld any of the facts from the authorities, but that they failed to investigate thoroughly before going to the district attorney. In other words, the plaintiff's case of malicious prosecution revolves around the question of whether the defendant failed to disclose all ascertainable, as well as ascertained, facts to the authorities.

The plaintiff avers that defendants did not disclose all the ascertainable facts. He states that the accountant who was employed to examine the books did not contact him to ask for an explanation, nor did the defendants themselves ask for an explanation.

The plaintiff further states that neither the assistant district attorney-general nor Sergeant White were provided copies of the voucher and the check stub which would have explained the use of the check on which the warrant was sworn.

The defendants point out, however, that the voucher was in Sullivan's sole possession. The bank record was unknown to the defendants at the time. The defendants did not, therefore, withhold any information which was known to them. The plaintiff contends that the defendants had an obligation not only to give the facts known to them at the time, but also to provide those which were ascertainable in the exercise of due diligence.

In Tennessee, it is settled that to invoke the defense of advice of counsel, the defendant "must state not only all material facts within his knowledge but all facts which he had reasonable ground to believe existed at the time of making the statement, or all material facts which he could have ascertained by reasonable diligence.

Grissim, 13 Tenn. We note, however, that there is a marked difference in cases where a person reports what he knows to the police or other public official.

In Cohen v. Ferguson, 47 Tenn. The police assumed control of the investigation, and brought charges against the plaintiff. The defendant was not liable for malicious prosecution because he furnished information to the authorities.

The Court quoted with approval the following language from 34 Am. In Kauffman v. Robins Company, Tenn. The Supreme Court noted that the "situation is not unlike that of reporting violations of the criminal law to law enforcement officers. Where facts are fully disclosed in good faith and with probable cause to believe they are true, a reporting party is not liable in an action for malicious prosecution if the public official erroneously institutes a criminal proceeding.

It should be remembered that the question is not whether the accused is really guilty, but whether good and reasonable grounds exist for the prosecutor to believe that he is.

Ferguson, supra. Where law enforcement officials conduct an independent investigation and make their own evaluation therefrom, it is sufficient to establish the defense of advice of counsel if the prosecutor shows that he has made a full disclosure in good faith of the facts within his knowledge at the time of the investigation.

The record discloses in this case that the defendants made a thorough investigation before instituting proceedings, that they conferred both with police officers and the office of the attorney-general, and that they made a full disclosure of all facts known to them as a result of their examination of the books and records. The advice of counsel defense goes to the element of probable cause in a malicious prosecution case.

When the facts are not in dispute, the issue of probable cause is exclusively for the court. Lewis v. Williams, S. When the defense is proved by uncontradicted evidence upon which reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion, the trial court must direct a verdict for the defendant. Mitchell v. Neuhoff, 56 Tenn.