A Pro Bono Case Study and a Call to Action
"This article is reprinted with permission from the January issue of The Legal Intelligencer. Copyright 2008 ALM Properties, Inc. Further duplication without permission is prohibited."
From the moment that I met my client, I could not wait for the opportunity to be in front of a jury presenting the facts of his case.
On March 3, 2006, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq. Upon learning of their son’s death, the Snyder family planned a traditional funeral service and burial. They expected a private service to grieve the loss of their loved one -- but, others had a different plan. On March 10, 2006, the Snyder family conducted a traditional Catholic mass at St. John’s Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland to remember Matt and to come to grips with the reality that they faced.
The defendants, on the other hand, also wanted to participate in the Snyder family’s grieving process. The defendants, a “church”, its leader and several church members from Topeka, Kansas, have become notorious for protesting military funerals. On March 8, 2006, the defendants announced their intention to picket “St. John’s Catholic dog kennel.” Sadly, Matt’s body was transported back to the United States on that very same day.
Mr. Snyder had vaguely heard of the defendants prior to his son’s funeral but did not understand the true nature of their hate or the harm that the defendants were preparing to cause. True to their word, the defendants came to the St. John’s Catholic Church on March 10, 2006.
Ironically the defendants, licensed attorneys, have knowledge of the law that allows them to push (and test) the limits of the First Amendment beyond the breaking point.
On March 10, 2006, the defendants and four of their young children carried out their threat and came to the church to protest. The defendants brought their relatively large fluorescent signs, and the signs read - Priest Rape Boys, Thank God for Dead Soldiers, You’re going to Hell, God Hates You, Pope in Hell, Thank God for IEDs and several other equally shocking statements. In addition to the offensive signs, the defendants sang macabre lyrics set to the tune of time honored patriotic songs. In one such example, “God Bless America” was changed to “God Hates America.”
The defendants are well aware that they can request police protection if they are concerned about their safety. In this regard, the defendants requested police protection during their protest. Local law enforcement obliged. Five Sheriffs in five patrol cars accompanied defendants to the protest. Fire trucks and ambulances were on the scene as a precaution. State, county and local police set up a command and control unit in a Winnebago. The local S.W.A.T. was present and on standby. Needless to say, the defendants’ presence created a circus like atmosphere at Matt’s funeral - someone else’s private religious assembly.
The circus did not end with government officials swarming the area. The defendants are quite talented at gathering media attention. Indeed, they announced their intention to protest the “dog kennel” by sending press releases to media throughout the region. The press releases accomplished the desired result - media was everywhere.
The defendants were not satisfied with disrupting the funeral. Indeed, the defendants posted an accounting of their protest on their website -- www.godhatesfags.com. Horribly, the title of their accounting was called “The Burden of LCpl Matthew Snyder.” On the site, the defendants stated, for example, that Matt’s parents had “raised him for the devil.”
Mr. Snyder approached Barley Snyder with a request to stop the defendants from traumatizing other grieving families. We agreed to meet and identified some very obvious concerns in the initial meeting with Mr. Snyder. Engaging in litigation with a family of full of attorneys was going to be extremely litigious. Defendants had openly claimed that they were entitled to say anything, anywhere and at any time - regardless of the harm caused - because of their interpretation of the First Amendment. Assuming that defendants had insurance, the potential claims that we would ultimately bring would, more than likely, be excluded from an insurance policy. If stopping the defendants from harming other families was the goal, punitive damages might achieve this result; however, prevailing on punitive damages is always a long shot. The chance of getting the defendants to agree to stop their protests was not likely. Consequently, chances of a settlement were slim to none. In the event that we prevailed, collections would be difficult.
Stated differently, litigating this case was going to cost a great deal and be met with a vigorous defense with little chance that the family of Matt Snyder would ever collect a large jury award.
Mr. Snyder is no different than most others -- he did not have several hundred thousand dollars to file a lawsuit against the defendants. However, he is a very sympathetic father that had just buried his son and still grieving that loss. Ironically, the defendants ultimately defended their actions based upon the rights that Matt was protecting. Matt was killed while defending our country and the rights that come with it.
Typically, Barley Snyder allows its lawyers to accept pro bono cases based upon each attorney’s own judgment. Given the nature and costs involved in this case, accepting this matter on a pro bono basis was going to be a “firm decision.” After several meetings discussing the merits of the case, the potential problems and a proposed budget, the firm granted permission to accept the case on a pro bono basis. The decision was based on the egregiousness of the offense to the Snyder family, and the consensus that this was not a political issue but a legal one. The large number of former members of the military practicing law with the firm may also have played a role in the decision to move forward.
After that, there was no looking back.
We immediately filed claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. The church and its leader, Fred Phelps, were named as defendants. Subsequently, two of Phelps’ daughters were named as defendants, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis. The church and father were represented by counsel but the sisters defended themselves. In response to the Complaint, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss which was denied. After the Motion to Dismiss was denied, that decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. That appeal was denied for obvious reasons -- it was filed prematurely. Discovery ensued, the defendants obstructed legitimate discovery requests, and discovery ultimately concluded. Subsequently, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was granted on two counts (Defamation and Invasion of Privacy - Publicity Given to Private Life).
Finally, we had arrived at the moment we were waiting for - we were selecting a jury. Trial was scheduled for two weeks but defendants quickly realized that their evidence was not going to benefit them. Consequently, their allotted time was not used and testimony concluded after 6 days of evidence being offered by all parties. After that, closing argument began and lasted the better part of a day. The closing argument was an electronic production with all of the latest technology on display and the defendants provided plenty of ammunition to use against them during closing.
The jury deliberated for over a day and finally reached a verdict. The jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages and checked the “yes” block on the verdict slip concerning punitive damages. Thereafter, the jury was charged with punitive damage instructions and provided the defendants’ net worth. The punitive damage award was deliberated much faster than the liability phase of deliberations. The jury awarded $8 million in punitive damages!
Before post trial motions were decided, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. Simultaneously, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a litigator, the case has been challenging but professionally rewarding. As a veteran, I was glad to help the Snyder family. As an attorney, I will never regret taking this worthy cause on a pro bono basis. Hopefully, Mr. Snyder and his family will be able to grieve a little better now that they have fought for the right to bury their son with dignity and respect. The Snyder family is not alone. The Phelps have protested at hundreds of funerals and will continue to do so. Attorneys across the country have the opportunity to help.
