Claim by Gov.'s Staff Was Unsupported

"Our position, particularly with the Walsh deposition, is that this is a classic case of reckless disregard [for the truth]," said Hoffman. "They had no information that any reasonable person on the planet could connect her to a crime. Yet they put that out because it was in their interest to do that and they didn't care whether it was false or true.

"Within 14 hours of having sent out that e-mail, they knew that they had put out a false statement and they never took it back," said Hoffman. "If they were really concerned about the truth, they would have put something out. But they would have had to put it out on election day, and it would have hurt them. So they wouldn't do it."

Attorney Neil Shapiro, representing both Walsh and the campaign, said Thursday that Walsh's deposition only underscored the campaign's belief that Miller might have had a criminal background. And the e-mail was sent out, Shapiro said, so journalists could check it out. The second e-mail, Shapiro said, only buttressed claims by the campaign that they believed Miller could have a criminal record.

When that turned out not to be true, Shapiro said, campaign officials had no obligation to again contact reporters.

"Legally, it's irrelevant," Shapiro said. "The judge has said what was relevant is what was in their mind when they sent out the messages, not what was in their minds two or three or four days later."

Said Shapiro: "Reporters frequently report that an individual was arrested and charged with child molestation or some other crime. But the same reporters rarely go back and report when the charges are dropped and the person is exonerated."