Judge Philip Rodgers of the 13th District Court has overruled the objections of defendants Don Barrows, Noel Flohe, and John Stanek to a jury's ruling that they must apologize to Elmwood Township Supervisor Deri Smith.

A Leelanau County jury ruled on that the defendants had defamed Smith and, in addition to levying damages, required them to issue a written apology to Smith. All three defendants have defied the deadline specified for the apologies. In a recent action, they asked Judge Rodgers to vacate that part of the jury's decision that required them to apologize.

Rodgers's decision is eloquent, not only of Smith's right to the apology ordered by the jury, but also of his deep respect for the law and for the jury system:

"Plaintiff is entitled to judgment reflecting the considered decision of the jury. Indeed, so long as the right to trial by jury exists our juries act as the conscience of our communities. This particular jury listened to a defamation case arising out of a political dispute and ordered the Defendants to apologize and pay damages. Plaintiff has made enforcement of the apology a moot issue -- but the finding and its inclusion in the judgment are fair and accurate. The common sense of a jury should never be overwhelmed by law. If such is the case, then the law should change."

Could there be a clearer contrast, between Rodgers's reverence for the law on the one hand, and the cynicism and arrogance of Barrows, Flohe, and Stanek on the other?

~ Steve