A civil trial against The New York Times reached a multimillion-dollar verdict on Thursday.
An Alabama jury determined that the mass media corporation had defamed Kai Spears in 2023, then a freshman walk-on basketball player for the University of Alabama’s Crimson Tide.
New York Times sports writer Billy Witz wrote a story on March 15, 2023, tying Spears to a fatal shooting that occurred near the university that killed 23-year-old mother Jamea Harris.
The shooting involved multiple University of Alabama basketball players, including former Alabama forward Darius Miles, who provided the weapon involved in the shooting and has since been charged with capital murder.
Also, Brandon Miller, who now plays for the Charlotte Hornets, was not charged in connection with the shooting. However, he arrived at the scene with Miles’ gun in his vehicle. Miles apparently retrieved the gun, which was later used by Michael Lynn Davis, who was ultimately found guilty of capital murder in Harris’ death.
Miller remained in his car during the shooting when bullets struck his windshield.
The New York Times story was corrected months later, but only after Spears filed a defamation case against the news outlet.
“The original version of this article, published March 15, misidentified the person who was in the car with Brandon Miller when the shooting occurred,” the correction said. “After the article was initially published, Alabama’s athletic director and Spears’s father denied that Spears was present. The Times included those responses and reviewed its reporting, but did not conclude that any other change to the article was warranted at that time.”
During the nine-day trial, Witz testified that the article he wrote “had a mistake, no question,” per the Tuscaloosa Patch.
The Alabama jury found that the Times owes Spears $9.25 million in damages.
“We’re disappointed the jury found The Times liable for an honest mistake,” a Times spokesperson told Fox News. “We thank the jury for its service, but believe the verdict and award of damages are contrary to law and not supported by the evidence. We are reviewing our legal options.”