Lott v Levitt- Tom Knuckles

The legal system of the United States is designed to punish those who have done wrong and help those who feel they have been wronged. Such is the case in the civil trial of Lott v Levitt (37 Media L. Rep. 1257). In this case, the plaintiff, John R. Lott, JR. filed a suit against the defendant, Steven D. Levitt. In his suit, Mr. Lott claimed that Mr. Levitt defamed him in the book Freakonomics. The plaintiff claims the defendant hurt his reputation by referencing his theories in More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Gun Control Laws, a novel written by the plaintiff. In the book, Mr. Lott contends that by giving more law-abiding citizens guns, the possession and sale of illegal weapons, as well as the number of violent crimes, will decrease. Mr. Levitt states in Freakonomics that based on the findings of other scholars, Mr. Lott’s work is not valid. According to Mr. Lott, Mr. Levitt implies in his book that Mr. Lott falsified his own data and therefore defamed his reputation and subsequently the reputation of his book and findings. As a result of the original suit, Mr. Levitt and the publishers of Freakonomics, HarperCollins, both filed motions to dismiss the suit claiming that the statements were not defamatory, but rather protected under the First Amendment. Both motions were dismissed, so the case went to trial. This specific trial was actually the appeals trial, after the district court originally ruled that Mr. Levitt had not defamed Mr. Lott. In the original trial, both plaintiff and defendant agreed to contest the trial according to Illinois state law. However, upon appealing the decision, Mr. Lott argued that the trial should have ran according to Virginia law, which is where his book was published originally. The appellate court denied this request, stating that he is not allowed to pick whichever state’s laws would give him the better outcome when things don’t go his way the first time. Because of this, the case was tried once again under Illinois law. According to Illinois law, the plaintiff must provide significant evidence that the statement was both false and caused damage to his reputation. Mr. Lott argued in the first trial that the statements made by Mr. Levitt were false and significant enough to damage his reputation, which the district court did not agree with and ruled in favor of Mr. Levitt. However, Mr. Lott once again changed his opinion when he filed for appeal. In the appeals court, Mr. Lott argued that he should be entitled to special damages that he did not reference in the original trial. Once again, the appellate court argued that Mr. Lott was not allowed to simply pick and choose whatever statements would benefit him the most on the second go around. As a result, the appellate court shot down all of Mr. Lott’s new arguments. The appellate court reviewed the district court’s decision based upon the original statements and rules that were given in the first trial, rather than the new, altered statements and rules Mr. Lott proposed. Because of this, the appellate court found no sign of defamation of Mr. Lott by Mr. Levitt, and upheld the district courts decision in favor of Mr. Levitt.