New Jersey Supreme Court is allowing two briefs from outside groups in defamation suit by former aide of state Sen. Stack that targets Hudson County Democratic Organization

Wednesday, July 28, 2010
By MELISSA HAYES
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

TRENTON - The New Jersey Supreme Court is allowing the New Jersey Press Association and a Washington, D.C.-based public interest research center to submit briefs in a defamation case filed against the Hudson County Democratic Organization.

A former aide to state Sen. Brian Stack, mayor of Union City, filed the suit in 2007 after two fliers, paid for by the Democratic organization, referred to him as a "coke dealer" and displayed his picture.

The aide argued his conviction was off-limits because it had been expunged from his record in 2006 - 16 years after the conviction.

Expungement is a process whereby a conviction is removed from a person's record after an official request.

Stack, an assemblyman at the time, was running against former state Sen. Bernard Kenny in a primary election when the fliers were circulated.

Three Superior Court Appellate Division judges dismissed the case - which was also filed against ranking party members and political consultants - in December, saying although the record was expunged the charges still appeared on the state Department of Corrections website until 2008, when they were removed because of the lawsuit.

The aide, who is identified only as G.D. in court filings, took the case to the Supreme Court, which certified it in April.

Attorney Charles Cohen, who is representing the aide, said a court date has not yet been set.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court considered our petition worthy of certification and look forward to the court's review of the important legal issues presented," he said.

Thomas Cafferty, an attorney for NJPA, said the association is interested in the case because newspapers should be able to print past criminal convictions, even if they have been expunged, without fear of a lawsuit.

Cafferty gave the example that a newspaper may have reported on the initial arrest and conviction. He said if the newspaper is not allowed to report that information once a person's record is expunged it would be like forcing the newspaper to purge its archives of the original articles.

The Electronic Privacy Info Center, in Washington D.C., is arguing the opposite.

EPIC's brief argues, "expungement reflects a judicial determination of fairness that should be respected, regardless of new business practices or technological change."

The Supreme Court approved both NJPA and EPIC's requests to file briefs last week and will allow both sides to present up to five minutes of oral argument. The briefs are due Aug. 19.