Washington Court Rules on Defamation Case Involving Lawyer’s Bipolar Disorder and Child Attraction Comments

On Monday, the Washington Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Law Office of John Randolph, PLLC v. EWU Media LLC, presided over by Judge Linda Coburn, alongside Judges Leonard Feldman and Ian Birk. The case centers on attorney John Randolph, who has bipolar disorder, and a 2021 incident that sparked a defamation lawsuit.

Incident and Legal Consequences

On August 3, 2021, Randolph experienced a mental health episode while at a public park. During the episode, he approached a child and attempted to persuade them to join him for boating or parasailing. When police arrived, Randolph made nonsensical statements, including an erroneous claim that he was the child’s father. According to Randolph, this behavior was consistent with a manic episode linked to his bipolar disorder. The matter was resolved when Randolph pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace.

EWU Media’s Video and Defamatory Narration

Nearly two years later, Explore with Us (EWU) Media published a 14-minute video on YouTube and Facebook, compiling police body camera and security footage from the 2021 incident. The video included EWU Media’s voice-over narration, which added context not present in the raw footage. Key claims in the narration included:

• Randolph "does, in fact, have a bit of dirt on him, so to speak."
• He is "apparently" hiding "a rather tumultuous past."
• He could "relapse" at any time.

The video amassed millions of views and thousands of comments, many of which accused Randolph of being a pedophile. He received harassing emails, voicemails, and even a death threat. The relentless harassment forced Randolph to close his law practice.

False and Defamatory Statements

Randolph filed a lawsuit against EWU Media, alleging that the narration over the video contained false and defamatory statements. He argued that the narration led viewers to believe he had a history of child predation, a claim he denies. The court noted that a reasonable jury could find the "gist" of the narration implied unsupported allegations of child predation, raising genuine questions about whether the false statements caused distinct harm beyond the true portions of the video.

EWU Media’s narration described Randolph as a:

• "Deranged suspect" hiding "a most disgusting secret."
• Individual whose actions and the police investigation were "sickening" and "disturbing" after he "creepily" talked to children.
• A "ticking time bomb" with an unpredictable risk of relapse.

The narration also included a segment where officers asked Randolph if he was attracted to children. Initially, he denied it, but under pressure, he agreed, stating that children are "beautiful creatures of God."

Court’s Ruling and Implications

The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that the case involves material factual disputes regarding whether the false statements in EWU Media’s narration caused harm distinct from the true portions of the video. The court emphasized that the narration’s implications could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that Randolph had a history of child predation, despite no evidence supporting this claim.

The ruling highlights the legal and ethical challenges of media narration in true-crime or public-interest content, particularly when it adds speculative or defamatory context to factual footage.