A federal jury on Thursday ordered The New York Times to pay $9.25 million in damages to former University of Alabama men's basketball player Kai Spears, who sued the newspaper for defamation over a March 2023 article that falsely identified him as being at the scene of a fatal shooting in Tuscaloosa.
The case centers on reporting about the January 2023 murder of 23-year-old Jamea Harris. The Times had reported that Spears was a passenger in former Alabama star Brandon Miller's vehicle during the incident, based on information from an unnamed source. Spears was not present at the scene, and the newspaper later published an editor's note acknowledging it had "erroneously identified" him.
What the Left Is Saying
Press freedom advocates argue the verdict sets a concerning precedent for journalism. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press called the decision "troubling" in a statement, arguing that honest errors by reporters who took steps to verify sources should not result in multimillion-dollar judgments. Media lawyers note the case could chill aggressive but legitimate reporting if outlets fear similar liability.
The Times argued throughout the trial that its reporter, Billy Witz, had made significant efforts to verify information and trusted a confidential source who identified Spears as "a white guy on the basketball team." The newspaper maintained it did not report Spears was involved in the fatal shooting itself, only that he was present at an earlier confrontation.
What the Right Is Saying
First Amendment opponents of broad press protections argue the verdict appropriately holds news organizations accountable for careless reporting. They contend that when a publication falsely links someone's name to a murder—even inadvertently—the reputational harm can be devastating and deserves compensation.
Spears testified that a day after the article was published, he was heckled at a basketball game. His attorneys argued the false report caused severe emotional distress and permanently linked his name to a killing in the public consciousness. The jury agreed that the newspaper's negligence warranted damages.
What the Numbers Show
The $9.25 million verdict represents the high end of defamation awards for similar cases involving private plaintiffs. Spears' attorneys had sought $15 million. By comparison, the average defamation settlement against major media outlets typically ranges from hundreds of thousands to a few million dollars.
The case is notable because courts have historically been reluctant to award large damages against established news organizations. The Times noted this marked its first loss in a U.S. defamation lawsuit over an article in approximately 50 years, suggesting juries often side with publishers when they can demonstrate reporting protocols were followed.
Because Spears was classified as a private figure rather than a public figure, he only needed to prove the newspaper acted negligently rather than with "actual malice"—the higher standard that applies to public figures under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).
The Bottom Line
The verdict is likely to be appealed, and legal experts say an appellate court could overturn or reduce the damages if it finds insufficient evidence of negligence. The Times said it believes "the verdict and award of damages are contrary to law" and announced it was reviewing its options.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between press freedom and individual reputation rights. While journalists argue that some error is inevitable in fast-moving coverage, critics say institutions with significant resources should bear responsibility when careless sourcing causes real harm to private individuals. The outcome could influence how newsrooms handle anonymous sources and verify sensitive information going forward.