Click for printable version
Click to send to a friend

Former Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones testifies Thursday in a libel case brought against her by former political rival Steve Miller. Photo by Jim Laurie.

Friday, May 04, 2001
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

LIBEL TRIAL: Jones says flier mistake inadvertent

Ex-mayor testifies inaccurate wording not intentional

Former Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones took the witness stand Thursday and repeatedly denied that workers on her 1991 campaign intentionally sent voters incorrect information about her opponent, Steve Miller.

"We did not put out a mailer we felt was false," Jones told jurors. The campaign mailer in question was sent to thousands of Las Vegas residents shortly before the May 1991 election and prompted Miller to file a libel lawsuit against Jones.

In 1993, then-District Judge Bill Maupin decided the case in favor of Jones without a trial, but Miller successfully appealed Maupin's ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The high court reinstated Miller's libel claim in December 1998, paving the way for the trial that started Monday before District Judge Michael Cherry.

Jones, now senior vice president of government relations and communications for Harrah's Entertainment, testified for 4 1/2 hours Thursday. Her testimony is scheduled to resume this morning.

The libel case stems from a flier, produced by the Jones campaign, titled "Meet the Headlines Behind Steve Miller."

Jones said the mailer was issued in response to a flier from the Miller campaign titled "Meet the Steve Miller Behind the Headlines."

Miller's flier provided favorable information about him, while Jones' mailer reproduced portions of a dozen negative newspaper articles about him.

The print of each article in the Jones flier was barely large enough to read, but the headlines were clearly discernible. Alongside each article was a summary, written by a campaign consultant.

Miller claims Jones defamed him with one such summary, which accompanied a 1988 article from the Las Vegas Sun.

The summary read, "A police detective accuses Miller of giving false information in a report concerning cocaine found in a car Miller was driving."

Jones said her consultant erred when he wrote the words "was driving," but she called it an "inadvertent mistake."

She stuck to that theme during several hours of questioning from Miller attorney Samuel Harding, who called her as a witness Thursday morning.

"We admit the mistake in 'was driving' was made, but it was not intentional, Mr. Harding," Jones said.

Jones said the summary should have described the car as one Miller "owned."

Evidence in the case indicates Miller drove the car, which had recently been purchased for one of his daughters, only once.

The car was in a body shop when Miller learned some vials and a plastic bag with a white powdery substance had been found in it. He notified police, who later went to the shop and were told that the items had been destroyed.

During his opening statement Tuesday, Harding said the mailer falsely portrayed Miller as a "drughead" and turned the tide in a race that Miller previously appeared to be leading.

Jones denied that the article and accompanying summary were placed in her campaign mailer to connect Miller with cocaine use.

"It was about dishonesty. It was about being disingenuous. And it was about lying to police," she said.

Jones conceded that Miller had previously been leading in the polls, but she said the turning point came when he made a series of foolish mistakes in the weeks before the election.

For instance, she said, Miller held a news conference at the Canyon Gate Country Club, where she lived, to portray her as a rich elitist who was out of touch with the people she wanted to represent.

During the news conference, Miller was asked about his own wealth and told reporters he was worth $2 million. News stories about the event also noted that he drove a Jaguar.

"It generated publicity which made him a laughingstock," Jones said.

Regarding the mailer that led to the libel lawsuit, Jones said she remembers seeing a rough draft of it but did not proofread it before it was sent to voters.

"Ultimately, it would be my responsibility," she said.