LIFE IN THE PINES
An excursion through the curious by-ways and cul-de-sacs
of Worcester County’s most densely populated community.

By TOM STAUSS/Publisher 1/1/2006

This column has been asked by one of our readers why the Progress “buried” the recent revelation that Chris Llinas, former Ocean Pines Association director, former Worcester County assistant state’s attorney, and still-practicing local defense attorney, was indicted by federal authorities for conspiracy to distribute narcotics, including cocaine, cocaine paste and heroin. The case is pending in U.S. district court in Baltimore.

To be accurate about it, the Progress didn’t just bury the story. It didn’t report it. This is the first published reference to it in these pages since the indictment came down, and even this is being offered with a great deal of reluctance. But as newspapers sling questions and accusations with reckless abandon at elected and non-elected policy makers and implementers, it seems altogether fair and appropriate that the occasional “why” be directed back in the direction of media inquisitors.

Reasons for not publishing the indictment were several.

First, the Salisbury daily newspaper had already broken the story on page one, more or less convicting Llinas in its sensational treatment. So much for innocent until proven guilty, that antiquated notion we learn in high school civics and on television crime shows, honored mostly in the breach since the government sends out press releases and the media regurgitates with little regard for balance, fairness and perspective.

In much the way that merely being under investigation in our nation’s capital is tantamount to a guilty verdict when the national media reports it, a criminal indictment carries with it a stigma that, in the minds of some, is little different than a conviction, although of course there’s a big difference. Should Llinas win acquittal at trial or work out some plea deal that spares him and his family considerable ordeal and expense, it is unlikely that the newspapers that sensationalized the charges will give the updated story the same weight and placement.

This kind of reality is one of the reasons many discerning individuals loathe the media.

That daily newspaper’s West Ocean City affiliate, the Independent, heaped further abuse on Llinas and his family by reprinting the story above the fold on its front page the next week, as if the story was new and original. While reporting the story was certainly legitimate, the means of doing so crossed the line of what ought to constitute fairness, balance and due concern for the impact on family members not accused of wrong-doing.

An editor can fairly consider what it might have been like for one of Llinas’ sons on the first day back at school after the media onslaught. And even under the protection of administrators and teachers, a kid can hear the thoughtless taunts of classmates. We all know how cruel kids can be when given license.

There’s a wonderful German word, Schadenfreude, that roughly translated means taking pleasure in the misfortune of others. Sensationalized accounts of drug-related indictments of someone well known feed this unpleasant aspect of human nature. Whether they deter recreational drug use among those so disposed or curtail distribution of dangerous narcotics is anyone’s best guess. Prohibition didn’t work in the 1920s, and the nation’s current drug war seems on its best days to be little more than a containment strategy.

So to balance things just a bit, the Progress elected not to make any special effort to publicize what had been exploited for maximum effect elsewhere. That the revelation was made known to us right on deadline was a contributing, but not decisive, factor.

The second reason is that indictments by their very nature offer up little supporting information and never attempt to give the defendants’ point of view. Someone interested in specific details of the charges or the “other side” of the issue has to wait until later court filings or the trial itself, assuming the case gets that far.

Unless the defendant or his attorney is willing to talk publicly about the charges, which is usually not a good idea (except to “influence” the jury pool in the most prominent of cases), all the media has to report are the charges. There is no way to fairly and impartially report on the case because, in most cases, the defendant is under orders from his attorney not to try it in the newspapers, especially before the government’s evidence is made available to the defense for review, analysis and presumed refutation.

Even then, it’s best to keep the lines of communications with prosecutors open, and published statements in the media can interfere with that communication to the detriment of the client.

One saving grace of that daily newspaper story is that it quoted Dan Stachurski, Llinas’ former colleague on the OPA board, to the effect that he would be very surprised if the charges are substantiated at trial. But because details of the government case are never forthcoming in an indictment, Stachurski’s comments reflected his personal loyalty and friendship, and his experiences with Llinas as an OPA director. It could not have been based on any direct knowledge of the case, because the evidence against Llinas was not available to him.

If it’s not possible to fairly and objectively report on a criminal case, then one option is not to report on it at all. Or give it less flagrant treatment on the inside pages.

Third, Llinas happens to be a friend and lives in the same neighborhood as this columnist. Objectivity is the hallmark of good reporting, and that can be made difficult if not impossible when the subject of a federal indictment is a friend. The initial reaction is shock and highly emotional: The charges can’t possibly be true, because no one with Chris Llinas’ intelligence and standing in the community could possibly allow himself to be involved in the reprehensible activities for which he is charged. There must be some reasonable explanation for why he finds himself in such difficulty.

The instinct to disbelieve the charges contained in the indictment conflicted with journalistic ethics to report the news without fear or favor.

Finally, and this is related to reason number three, some further digging produced a friend of Llinas who says he was told by him that he may have been “ratted out” by a former or current client of his, perhaps in the service of a plea agreement. As a criminal defense attorney, Llinas has no doubt associated with real-life criminals, people who have actually done the felonious deeds of which they are accused.

It doesn’t take a huge leap to suspect that someone of that ilk is fully capable of turning on his lawyer, or former lawyer, with or without factual foundation, in order to demonstrate a cooperative attitude to those who are prosecuting him.

In addition, as any viewer of crime dramas on TV know well, investigators and prosecutors are always trying to move up higher on the drug-distribution chain to snag the bigger fish. It’s always possible – granted, this is a sheer speculation – that Llinas, by virtue of who he has or is representing as a defense attorney, has some knowledge of that distribution chain. He may be reluctant to share that information out of deference to attorney-client privilege, or for other reasons best known to him.

An indictment, though it doesn’t seem fair to use it that way, may be a means to coerce “cooperation” from Llinas that otherwise might not be forthcoming.

Llinas, of course, is under his lawyer’s orders not to talk about any of this, which makes reporting on the case fairly and objectively almost impossible.

All of which constitutes a very long answer to a very short, but reasonable, question.