Click for printable version
Click to send to a friend

Former Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Miller, left, listens Tuesday as jurors are polled about their verdict in his 1991 libel case against former Mayor Jan Jones. The panel ruled in Jones' favor. Seated beside Miller are his attorneys, Barbara Johnston and Samuel Harding. Photo by Jeff Scheid.

Wednesday, May 30, 2001
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Jones prevails in Miller libel lawsuit

Ex-councilman unlikely to appeal

Jurors on Tuesday rejected the libel claim Steve Miller has pursued for the past decade against former Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones, but he refused to characterize the decision as a loss.

"It'll always be a victory for me and my family," he told reporters after hearing the verdict.

Miller said the four-week trial gave him a chance to tell his story and clear his name. He said he has no regrets about taking the case this far but has no plans to file an appeal.

"Getting it behind me is probably one of the most satisfying adventures of my life," he said.

Miller, 56, sat stoically beside his two attorneys as the jury's decision was announced. Jones was not present in the courtroom.

"I wish she would have been here," Miller said shortly after the announcement. "I'd like to talk to her right now."

Jones' attorney, Bruce Laxalt, said his client was attending a graduation ceremony out of state. He said he called her and told her about the verdict.

"She's relieved and gratified," the attorney said.

Laxalt said he soon would file a motion asking that Miller be required to pay Jones' attorney fees.

"They will probably approach six figures," Laxalt said.

Miller said he did not know how much money he has spent on the lawsuit since he filed it in May 1991.

"Whatever we've done here and whatever it's cost, I think it's worth the effort and the expense," Miller said.

Jones soundly defeated Miller, then a city councilman, in the 1991 mayoral race.

Miller's lawsuit stemmed from a flier that the Jones campaign mailed to some 85,000 Las Vegas residents just days before the election.

The case centered around a highlight in the mailer that summarized a 1988 newspaper article. The highlight read, "A police detective accuses Miller of giving false information in a report concerning cocaine found in a car Miller was driving."

Miller claimed the statement falsely portrayed him as a drug user.

Jones, now senior vice president of government relations and communications for Harrah's Entertainment, admitted only that the statement contained an "inadvertent mistake."

She said the highlight, written by a campaign consultant, should have described the car as one Miller "owned."

Evidence in the case indicated Miller had driven the car in question, which recently had been purchased for one of his daughters, only once. The car was in a body shop when Miller learned a plastic bag with a white powdery substance had been found in it.

Miller notified police about the discovery, but the substance was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

The jury's four men and four women deliberated nearly three days before reaching a decision. Six of the jurors had to agree in order to return a verdict.

Jurors first had to answer the question: "Has plaintiff Steve Miller proved by clear and convincing evidence that the mailer highlight was substantially false?"

Six jurors chose "no" as their answer to that question, which resolved the case in Jones' favor.

When the panel took an initial vote Thursday, only five jurors voted "no." Linda Soeder changed her mind Tuesday and contributed the sixth "no" vote. Soeder said she did so after the five who were siding with Jones asked the other three to try swaying them.

"I don't believe that we could show clear and convincing evidence," she said.

Jury forewoman Judith Osterman, who voted in favor of Jones, said the panel hopes Miller no longer will have to deal with the issue raised in the 1991 mailer.

"Mr. Miller's name should be cleared from any connection with cocaine, along with his family," she said.

Juror Jim Morrison, who sided with Miller, said he thought the jury should send a message to Jones.

"I'm disappointed that she was not held accountable," he said. "She's ultimately responsible for what took place."

The three jurors who initially voted for a decision in Miller's favor said they would have awarded him only nominal damages, if any.

"I would have awarded Steve Miller a public apology from the Jones camp, paid for by the Jones camp," said juror Dan Leach, one of the two who stuck with a vote for Miller.

Although Jones apologized at the time, Leach said she should have purchased a television or print advertisement that would have reached the same number of people who had received her mailer.

Laxalt said Jones met with Miller in February 1992 and offered to do just that. Miller agreed but also wanted a $145,000 payment, the attorney said.

Laxalt said he and Jones had to fight the fact "that the public is sick and tired of negative campaigns." He noted that Miller also ran a negative campaign against Jones in 1991.

The attorney described Tuesday's verdict as "a good win for a great lady."

Miller was elected to the City Council in 1987. He resigned after losing the mayoral race, a month before the end of his term.