Hook Reporter Subpoenaed

Remember the allegation of police brutality in the Water St. crosswalk incident? The Hook‘s Courteney Stuart has been subpoenaed as a witness because she wrote a story about it. Which is bizarre on a couple of levels: not only was she not a witness, but, as editor Hawes Spencer points out, “if a reporter has to go to court everytime they write a story to say that they wrote it, that would be a waste of time and it seems like a waste of court resources. Stuart has filed a motion to be dismissed as a witness, which the court will consider in the form of a hearing on Monday morning.

13 Responses to “Hook Reporter Subpoenaed”


  • Has this been requested by the Commonwealth Attorney in the city? If so what the heck is wrong with Mr. Chapman.

  • Wouldn’t anything stated to the reporter be considered hearsay in court?

  • Guess they want her “source”??

  • Hawes isn’t the only one who’s befuddled. Ya know, the CPD has finally gotten the “Serial Rapist” behind bars and then next they just dropped a net over those vicious cold blooded murderers. You’d think that they’d want to “let this go” and enjoy some recent successes, but noooo. I’d drop it and let Rick Ba-roke sweep it under the rug as usual.

  • Sounds like a senior cop (the one obviously and embarrassingly at fault), pulled in some chits with the CA’s office. I’ve had some problems with C. Stuart in the past, but I’ll stick up for her like Patrick Henry on this one.

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
    Oh crap Yahoo says it was Voltaire, but not even him really.

  • I do not agree with your attribution, but I will defend to the death your right to misquote Voltaire.

  • Kelly, it would be hearsay if both parties to the conversation are not present in the courtroom.

  • Odd, agreed. It is not like Ms. Stuart was not going to be there already. Wasn’t it Ms. Stuart who carried the water for the commonwealth in the Beebe case?

  • “But the fact of the matter is, Voltaire didn’t pen or utter the sentiment you quote.” If you read further on yahoo: http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”&fr=slv8-msgr&u=ask.yahoo.com/20030331.html&w=”i disapprove of what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it”&d=TDreGfL9PxTc&icp=1&.intl=us
    Supposedly, the reporter has been subpoened to verify that the “witnesses’
    current version is the same as what they said the night of the incident. Does anybody know if that person came back from California as promised to testify for the defendants?

  • Don’t know about the witness.

    Yeah, I tried to explain that it was not really Voltaire, but not too clearly. He bit me in the butt on another quote too.

    “The best is the enemy of the good.”
    * Variant: The perfect is the enemy of the good.
    * Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.
    * [reference, book by Voltaire] La Bégueule (1772)

    That’s from Wikiquote.org. I don’t know how good a source it is, but if you search it, you can also find this:

    Лу́чшее — враг хоро́шего.
    * Transliteration: Luchsheye — vrag khoroshego.
    * Translation: Best is the enemy of good.
    * English version: The best is oftentimes the enemy of the good.

    No explanation of whether the proverb came before or after Voltaire. Mmm maybe a book would be better in this case.

  • Wow! What a can of worms you have opened, colfer. http://forum.quoteland.com/1/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=586192041&f=099191541&m=1821902341 (For those who are interested, this is about contemporaries of Voltaire, those who are not, please skip it. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand.)
    Thanks, colfer, for an afternoon of fun. it reminds me to always be careful of what I read.

  • ScottsvilleResident

    “She would need to be available in case any of the defendants or witnesses make a statement different than the one they already gave to Ms. Stuart,” says the prosecuting attorney.

    Translation: We’re really unhappy about the negative reporting, which made this into an incident we couldn’t sweep under the rug, so we’re going on this fishing expedition to see if we can get any information, beyond what she might have published in the story, and wouldn’t it really be great if the information turned out to help us exonerate the bad cop.

    I think we can all blame Robert Novak for this.

  • The idea that the article’s appearance in the Hook may have precipitated the depth of charges and subsequent events is interesting.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog