Jury Finds Against Rolling Stone, Reporter In UVA Rape Hoax Case

A jury found writer Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone liable on multiple claims in a defamation suit based on a gang rape story the magazine later retracted.University administrator Nicole Eramo was seeking $7.5 million from the magazine over its portrayal of her in the 2014 story by Sabrina Rubin Erdely about the alleged sexual assault of a woman identified only as “Jackie.” Eramo claimed she was unfairly portrayed in the article as trying to sweep Jackie’s sexual assault under the rug in order to protect the university.

Following the verdict against Rolling Stone, the judge in the case is meeting with lawyers to discuss when they will start the damages phase of the trial. Eramo originally requested $350,000 in punitive damages and $7.5 million in compensatory damages. They dropped the punitive claim during the middle of the trial, but her lawyer, Libby Locke, suggested they might seek more than $7.5 million in compensatory damages. She told CBS News’ Rebecca Kaplan, “We are not limited to seeking $7.5 million. That number was in our initial complaint and much has changed since then.” 

Eramo had to prove that Rolling Stone statements about her made her appear “odious, infamous or ridiculous” and that the magazine acted with “actual malice,” meaning it knew that what it was writing about her was false or should have known it was false.

The story about Jackie’s rape set off a firestorm at the University of Virginia and in schools nationwide and prompted police to launch an investigation into the alleged assault. Eramo received hundreds of angry letters and emails and faced protesters outside her office. The story crumbled after other news outlets began asking questions and police found no evidence to back up Jackie’s claims. The article was officially retracted in April 2015.

Attorneys for Eramo argued that the author had a preconceived notion  about the story she wanted to write and ignored any evidence or elements that did not fit the narrative she wanted to tell.

Attorneys for the magazine argued that everyone who came across Jackie believed her story, and that they had no doubts about the veracity of her account until after the article was already in print.

Over the course of the more than two-week trial, the 10 jurors watched 11 hours of video testimony, heard from a dozen live witnesses and examined nearly 300 exhibits.