In a unanimous decision, the court found that Nevin and Denise Pratt can sue Mary Ann Kingston Nelson and two attorneys for statements made to news media during a 2003 news conference, when they announced a $110 million lawsuit against individuals and businesses alleged to belong to the Davis County Cooperative Society.

The massive lawsuit named 242 individuals - including the Pratts - as members of the society, which it described as a "Kingston organization." The lawsuit claimed those listed were "key members" of the organization and shared responsibility for Nelson's forced marriage at age 16 to her uncle and the subsequent beating she received when she tried to leave the plural marriage.

The Pratts sued for defamation in 2004, naming Nelson and attorneys John D. Morris and William A. Mark and other unnamed parties.

A 2nd District judge ruled that the Pratts were barred from pursuing a defamation suit because of immunity extended to reports on court proceedings. The judge also said a group defamation rule prevented the Pratts, who were not specifically named during the news conference, from making individual claims.

The court's rulings were upheld by the Utah Court of Appeals.

But the Supreme Court said Nelson's claims lost their privileged status as part of a judicial proceeding when she aired them at the news conference held after she filed her lawsuit.

Statements made by parties in a lawsuit to the news media are not protected because media "at most" are acting as "concerned citizens" and have no standing in the proceedings nor "any clear legal interest" in a case's outcome, the court said.

"Statements made and distributed to the press concerning pending or ongoing litigation do little, if anything, to promote the truth finding process in a judicial proceeding," the court said.

Statements made before, during and even after a hearing have generally been extended immunity, the court said, but it was disinclined to grant that protection to news conferences held solely to publicize a case.

"In effect, the court has told litigants to prosecute their cases in the courtroom, not in the newspaper or on television," said Michael O'Brien, a Salt Lake City attorney who practices First Amendment law and represents The Salt Lake Tribune.

The court also found that the Pratts were not precluded from pursing a defamation claim under the group defamation rule. While they were not named specifically during the news conference, they were identified twice in a list of "Order Individuals" and "Order members" in the complaint distributed to media.

The court said it disagreed that the group was so large no individuals could claim defamation.

"To the extent that a party identifies people in [a] group by their individual names, the group defamation rule no longer applies," it said.

brooke@sltrib.com