A civil jury in Alabama has ruled that The New York Times is liable for defamation after a 2023 article erroneously linked former University of Alabama basketball player Kai Spears to a fatal shooting that occurred near the campus. The verdict, which includes a $9.25 million damages award, marks a rare instance where a major news outlet faced a substantial financial judgment for an honest reporting error.
The Misreported Story
The article, published in the spring of 2023, suggested that Spears had been present at a gathering where a gun was handed to a fellow student, a narrative that quickly unraveled into a broader scandal involving multiple athletes. In reality, the piece misidentified the individual who was with Brandon Miller at the scene, conflating him with a different player and ignoring the subsequent chain of events that led to the tragedy.
The shooting itself unfolded on a night that would become a touchstone for discussions about gun violence and campus safety. Darius Miles, a teammate of Spears, was later charged with capital murder for providing the weapon, while Michael Lynn Davis, who was convicted of capital murder, used that gun to kill Jamea Harris, a 23‑year‑old mother. Brandon Miller, now a Charlotte Hornets guard, remained in his car during the incident, a detail that was later clarified in court.
Correction and Admission
Months after the story ran, The New York Times issued a correction acknowledging that it had misidentified the person standing beside Miller at the time of the shooting. Sportswriter Billy Witz, who authored the piece, publicly admitted the error during the trial, stating that the mistake was an "honest mistake" that nevertheless caused reputational harm to Spears and his family.
The jury’s decision to award Spears $9.25 million underscored the legal standard applied in defamation cases involving public figures: the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with at least negligence, and that the false statement caused actual damages. While the Times argued that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence, the court found sufficient grounds to hold the newspaper accountable for the erroneous reporting.
Beyond the monetary award, the case has sparked a broader conversation about journalistic responsibility, especially when covering high‑profile athletes and sensitive subjects such as gun violence. It serves as a reminder that even well‑resourced newsrooms can make costly errors, and that the repercussions extend beyond the courtroom into the public’s trust in the media.