PUBLIC TRIALS ARE PART OF NEWS THAT WE WILL COVER

At this newspaper, we're in the business of reporting facts to the public. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that this is not always the surest way to win a popularity contest. We accept this as an unpleasant but unavoidable fact of our trade, as we constantly strive to fulfill our responsibilities to our reading public in a responsible manner.

What prompts these ruminations on the newspaper's unique role is a knot of difficulties arising out of the recently concluded Charter Finance litigation. From some quarters, a crescendo of criticism against our news coverage has been heard. We deem it important to try to sort out some issues.

We begin by noting that trials are public business. Court proceedings have always been covered by news media; conflicts between the public's right to know and the rights of parties to the case are nothing new. The news media has a role to provide: fair, responsible, balanced and accurate reporting of what occurs at these public proceedings. This, the parties to the case, like the reading public, are entitled to expect.

At the risk of seeming flippant, we feel it worthwhile to point out that the Southeast Missourian did not bring the lawsuit. Sixty-four plaintiffs did. These plaintiffs included several widely known and respected public figures: three are judges, and one is a city councilman. Hence a level of public interest that would be high in any case was even higher.

Losses claimed in the collapse of Charter Finance were substantial. A single Sikeston family is said to have lost $300,000; an elderly Cape Girardeau couple, just under $200,000. In most cases, we're talking about people's life savings, their cushion in retirement. It isn't hard to understand that passions will run hot under these circumstances.

The aggrieved plaintiffs claimed their losses, which totalled more than $1.2 million, resulted in part because of financial irregularities not discovered in audits done by a local accounting firm. These plaintiffs sued to recover their losses. Only two of the six defendants were directly involved in the audits, although the lawsuit named all partners.

Their professional reputations on the line, the accountants hotly disputed the allegations, saying they followed the highest standards of their profession. As the saying among lawyers goes, this is why we have race tracks, football stadiums and courthouses. The easy ones don't go to trial, or are never brought; it's the tough cases, more often than not, that end up in the courtroom.

Which is where we come in. We were there to cover the trial in its entirety, giving equal play, on page one, to all sides, for the duration.

The jury was not sequestered or sealed off from public contact. However, the judge instructed the jurors not to read newspaper articles or listen to television or radio trial coverage. He asked the jurors after virtually every recess whether they had read the newspaper articles or followed any other news accounts. None indicated they had done so.

We dispute the claim from some quarters that the Southeast Missourian "tried the case in the newspaper." Our trial stories consisted solely of testimony presented in court by sworn witnesses.

Critics may say the coverage this past week was one-sided. The charge is true, to a point, but it's crucial to understand why this is so. Our stories covered only the plaintiffs' side because that was the only side presented in court testimony. The case was abruptly settled Thursday morning, three days after it started, before the defense ever took the stand. The defendants never had their day in court, or in the newspaper, because they never took the stand. That was their choice, not ours. The defense side would have been featured prominently on page one of the Southeast Missourian, just as the plaintiffs' was.

To use a ready but imperfect analogy, consider a recently concluded and much celebrated case. It is as though the recent rape trial of William Kennedy Smith had ended at the conclusion of testimony by the complaining witness, and before the defense had presented its case.

It is basic in trials that the plaintiffs must prove their case, and so present it first. We in the newspaper business don't determine this sequence; laws and customs of longstanding do so.

A major behind-the-scenes player in the lawsuit was the insurance company that will pay the settlement. We understand the decision to settle was greatly influenced by the insurance firm a choice not endorsed by all defendants who were prepared to carry the trial to its conclusion for what they felt were erroneous charges. But we must point out that the terms of the settlement are confidential as were the negotiations. The fact an insurance company would pay the settlement couldn't even be mentioned in court under Missouri law.

Before trial, 17 plaintiffs settled their case. We reported the fact. Before trial, a new allegation of fraud was leveled at defendants. When we learned of this, we reported it. Later, these fraud allegations were dropped. We reported this as well.

None of this is to say we're above making mistakes, still less that we're immune from criticism. When we're shown to be wrong, we'll promptly correct our mistakes, and try to learn from the episode.

We note, finally, that Friday's edition featured a page one story detailing the filing of still another highly controversial lawsuit: allegations by Jerry Ford, former owner of Lenco Inc., a large Jackson manufacturing employer, against his former lender, Jackson Exchange Bank, and certain current and former officers of that institution. As with the Charter Finance litigation, we once again find ourselves in the middle, with nothing to gain, and with friends and business acquaintances on both sides of a bitter controversy.

Our job is to report the news, not make it. Our goal is to provide fair and accurate reporting of events that affect this community, and that includes public trials.