Anonymous Tip: A Stampede of Reporters

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 307-319

So, my new (used) copy of Anonymous Tip came. And you know what? This next section is the most boring section ever. Basically, it’s the next Monday now (a week later) and it’s the hearing about Gail’s motion to dismiss the case.  I’m going to be doing some major summarizing while zeroing in on the interesting tidbits—namely, some developments in the benighted Peter-Gwen-Gordon love triangle. Or whatever it is.

In the week and a day since our local intrepid reporter published the first article on the case, Gwen’s suit has become something of a media sensation.

The press corps was out in force the following Monday. They were desperate for some pictures—both television and photos—of the participants in the case of Landis v. Corliss, et. al. There were six television crews—four from Spokane, and two who had flown over from Seattle after the Morgan Howard article had been reprinted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There were also three radio reporters, four print journalists, and three photographers.

I’m not sure whether or not this is realistic for a case like this. On the one hand, this sounds like overkill, but on the other hand, this is a case involving perjury by government officials. Either way, Farris tells us that all of these reporters watched Howard closely, because he was the only one who knew what Peter or anyone else on the case looked like. They move as soon as he does, and mob first Gail, who comes in with Matt Bartholomew, and then Peter and Gwen, who have Joe with them.

Matt says “No comment” but Gail decides to respond to Howard’s question about whether they will use the immunity defense—“We are just trying a lawsuit according to the normal rules of court,” she says. “We are not going to turn this case into politics or a publicity stunt.” When Peter and Gwen arrive, with Joe, Howard moves to question them as well and a “stampede” of reporters follow him. Peter refuses to say anything, telling the press that he will be back “after the hearing,” suggesting that they may make a statement then.

But there are also these tidbits:

[Howard] had spied Peter Barron coming down the sidewalk with two others. He assumed that the striking blond was his client, Gwen Landis. He quietly whispered to his photographer, “Get all the pictures of her you can. She’s going on page one.”

I am, frankly, becoming a bit creeped out by all the references to how gorgeous Gwen is. It’s as though that’s all that really matters about her, how gorgeous and innocent and helpless she is. Never mind that she works full time as a nurse at the hospital and is a single mother raising a young daughter with the help of her parents. Nope. What matters is that she’s gorgeous.

Then this happens when a TV reporter tries to question Gwen:

Gwen looked at Peter, who simply shook his head from side to side. Two television cameraman blocked her path, waiting for an answer to the reporter’s question. Peter put his arm around Gwen, shielded her from the onslaught, and said, “Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. We have an appointment with Judge Stokes.”

As soon as his arm was around her shoulders, the cameras flashed incessantly.

“That’s the shot we’ll use,” Howard whispered to his camera man.

I understand why Farris wanted to inject some romance into his drama. I just wish the romance could have been between some pairing other than a lawyer and his penniless charity client. But maybe this is a good thing. Maybe the press will catch wind of the romance and take Peter to task for it.

Donna and Rita somehow slip in without getting caught by the press, and so does Gordon. Yes—Gordon.

Gordon Landis slip through without any questions at all. Dressed in jeans and a sports shirt, he did not look as if he belonged to the cast of players involved in Spokane’s most famous current lawsuit.

And then finally—finally—they get started. Farris writes a decent amount about who sat where, and Peter explains to Gwen that they likely won’t get the decision that same day—something I’d have thought he’d have already told her. Anyway, Gail goes first.

Gail argues that they should dismiss the case because social workers are “immune from civil lawsuits for actions done in connection with a child abuse prosecution.” She contends that the investigation leading up to the filing of a lawsuit is ultimately part of the lawsuit, and thus that this immunity extends to the initial investigation. She also argues that, based on a Supreme Court ruling, “witnesses such as social workers are absolutely immune from a lawsuit based on alleged perjury.” I’m a little confused about whether we’re talking about perjury that took place in court only—i.e. the statements about the bruises—or if we’re talking about the computer falsification, and that really isn’t clarified. Maybe it’s both?

Anyway, Gail points to Meyers v. Contra Costa County Department of Social Services to back up the immunity defense and to Briscoe v. LaHue to back up the perjury defense—“all witnesses are immune from lawsuits that arise from the substance of their testimony.” The judge pushes back, asking Gail questions. He says the computer tampering has cut significantly into Donna and Rita’s credibility. For some reason Gail doesn’t respond by arguing that it was Blackburn that did the tampering. That isn’t mentioned at all. Instead she simply points to the law, and to the above cases.

For his part, Peter argues that social workers’ immunity begins “when the lawsuit was filed,” and that any action taken before it is filed—such as Donna’s entry into Gwen’s home without a warrant and the strip-search of Casey—is not immune. He argues that it is well established that a social worker needs a warrant to gain entry to a home when investigating a report. He further argues that Briscoe v. LaHue only addressed alleged perjury, not proven perjury such as in this case.

Again, I’m confused, though. They all keep talking about cases where a witness is accused of perjury—but is it in fact proven that Donna committed perjury when testifying about the bruises? All that is known is that someone changed the initial intake report to make it look more urgent. Donna did answer questions about when the call came in in her deposition, but again, how can they know this wasn’t all engineered by Blackburn, as Gail is ostensibly arguing? I’m unclear as to what proven perjury by a witness on the stand we’re talking about here.

Anyway, enough with this. Let’s get to the judge’s ruling, which he offers immediately upon the conclusion of each attorney’s arguments, and without even taking a recess.

“This motion is going to be granted in part and denied in part. Mr. Barron, I wish I was the Supreme Court. Yours is the case I would use to reverse the rule on suing witnesses for perjury. But as Ms. Willet pointed out, I’m not the Supreme Court, and so all counts of the lawsuit dealing with perjury are going to be dismissed. I do it reluctantly, but I feel I have no choice.”

. . .

“But I am going to deny the motion to dismiss the parts of the case dealing with the illegal search. I read Meyers the same way Mr. Barron suggests. Once the social worker has filed the case in court, he or she is immune from suit. But before that time, if the social worker violates the Constitution, that social worker can be sued for violating the civil rights laws of this country.”

Peter is satisfied. He tells Gwen this “as good as I hoped.” Judge Stokes says any appeal on the immunity issue must be filed quickly, and Matt asks for a week to do so. Peter tells Gwen that because they’re going to appeal, she can cross-appeal, and “keep asking the higher courts to reverse the rule that lets perjurers go free.”

“That sounds good. Keep fighting, Peter. Just keeping on fighting for what’s right.”

This is more evidence that this wasn’t proofed very carefully, but also, if Peter were actually interested in what’s right he wouldn’t have violated ethical rules left and right throughout the duration of this case.

Anyway, the reporters really want a statement as he leaves, so they stop to give one. Peter says they’re pleased with the ruling as a whole, but “disappointed” that the judge was forced to dismiss the perjury accounts. He pledges to take his arguments on that count “to a higher court.” He’s asked if he’ll appeal to the Supreme Court and he says the next step is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is more of that exposition where he’s actually explaining it four our benefit, as his readers. He adds that the court is located in San Francisco but that the case will probably be argued in Seattle, and that there will be a cross-appeal.

And then there’s Gwen, of course. She answers some basic questions about Casey—“she was upset, very upset and scared by the illegal search”—and Peter denies their request for pictures.

Peter grasped Gwen’s left arm gently, and led her through the crowd and away from the federal building.

This is the end of a chapter, but I’m going to give you one more thing. “Mother Cannot Sue State Workers For Perjury” is the headline on the front page of the Spokesman-Review the next morning, with that picture of Peter and Gwen. And do we remember who regularly reads the newspaper? Gordon, of course! And it’s not just the paper, he also watches the news.

Gordon Landis watched the five and six o’clock news shows with a slow burn. By the time the eleven o’clock news re-ran the stories, his jealousy of Peter had reached the boiling point. When he saw the picture on the front page of the paper the following morning, he slammed the paper down on his kitchen table, uttered a string of expletives, and vowed to stop this man from stealing the heart of his ex-wife.

“I’ll stop him. I’m going to stop him, one way or the other,” he muttered out loud in his empty apartment.

Uh oh. Gordon’s getting downright scary.