No Offense, But Oprah Kicks Rump Happy Talk-Show Host Wins Showdown Against Mad Cow Industry

Oprah Winfrey walked out of the federal courthouse here on Thursday with a big grin. She thrust her right fist in the air and yelled, “Yes!”

“Free speech not only lives, it rocks!” she told a solid wall of reporters, photographers and fans.

Winfrey’s emotional celebration came minutes after a jury unanimously had declared that she did not defame several Amarillo cattlemen during a 1996 talk show about “mad cow” disease.

Paul Engler, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Winfrey, was gracious in defeat. When asked whether he had any words for the popular talk-show host, he paused and said, “Congratulations. She worked hard all the way through the case just like the rest of us.”

But he said later that he intends to appeal the verdict.

Engler and his attorneys argued throughout the five-week trial that Winfrey, her staff and vegetarian activist Howard Lyman purposely had made false statements about the safety of U.S. beef during the hour-long program. The cattlemen contended that cattle prices fell in the days after the program and that the value of their herds declined by more than $10 million.

But jurors decisively rejected their contentions after six hours of deliberation Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning.

“We were a bunch of people who believe in free speech,” said juror Pat Gowdy. “Our rights have suffered enough in this country. Our freedom of speech may be the only one we have left to regain what we’ve lost.”

Fred Dunaway, another juror, said none of the eight women and four men on the jury ever expressed strong sentiment for the cattlemen.

“We had a few that were undecided and we wanted to give them a night to sleep on it,” he said.

After U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson read the verdict, an emotional dam burst in the courtroom.

Winfrey and her colleagues shed tears on each other’s shoulders as they hugged and laughed with relief. Several spectators erupted in cheers as they ran from the courtroom to participate in the chaotic street scene in front of the downtown courthouse - hundreds of Winfrey fans, curious downtown office workers and media people waiting for the cattlemen and Winfrey to make statements.

Engler, clad in western garb and white cowboy hat, good-naturedly conceded his disappointment but said he believed the case had bolstered public confidence in U.S. beef.

Throughout the trial, witnesses testified that mad cow disease had never been found in U.S. cattle and that no American had ever died from a related disease.

“We made a point emphatically,” he said. “U.S. beef is safe.”

Joe Coyne, Engler’s lead attorney, said the trial left open “various issues for appeal.”

Coyne said he believes jurors sided with Winfrey because they were not convinced the talk show had anything to do with the Amarillo cattlemen or their ranches and feedlots.

The 1996 talk show basically asked the question, “Could mad cow disease make its way from Great Britain to the United States and threaten American consumers?”

The program repeatedly referred to beef industry practices, but never mentioned by name the Amarillo cattlemen, any of their companies or Texas beef. Still, they sued and claimed damages.

“The jury didn’t say statements on the program were true,” Coyne said. “They just didn’t believe we met the requirement that we prove they the statements were specifically about our clients’ cattle.”

Engler told reporters that he does not regret picking a court fight with Winfrey and that he sincerely believed her talk show had been filled with lies about the cattle industry.

But jurors apparently didn’t agree with those claims and other allegations that Winfrey edited out of the program important statements from beef industry spokesmen.

“As somebody said, its very hard to fight a celebrity,” Engler said. “But you can’t look back on something like that.”

And Winfrey proved her popularity once again when Engler cleared the sidewalk stage and she emerged from the courthouse with drying tears streaking her cheeks.

“We love you Oprah,” several women yelled amid applause.

“God was by your side,” yelled another.

Others simply reached out and wanted to touch her.

“Oh my God!” Evelyn Sherel said as she looked at her own right hand after patting Oprah on the shoulder.

During her post-verdict news conference, Winfrey said she never believed she and her staff had done anything wrong during the mad cow program. She said she holds no ill will for Engler despite his sharp attacks on her journalistic standards of fairness and balance.

“There are times I wanted to thank him,” she said. “What he has done has made me a stronger person. It did not muzzle me.”

The cattlemen originally brought many of their damage claims under a 1995 Texas “veggie libel law,” which prohibits the disparagement of perishable food products.

That law does not require plaintiffs to prove that the libelous content of a television program or newspaper article is specifically about them or their company. It prohibits defamatory statements about an entire industry.

The cattlemen’s case suffered a serious setback last week when Judge Robinson ruled that they could no longer pursue damage claims under the veggie libel law.

The ruling left them with a case alleging that Winfrey had disparaged their specific businesses, a claim with a much higher burden of proof.

When the trial began, legal experts said the Oprah case would be the first constitutional test of veggie libel laws, which have taken root in 13 states during the 1990s.