VISTA — On Aug. 26, a San Diego Superior Court jury found that mold advocate Sharon Kramer defamed VeriTox scientist Dr. Bruce Kelman in a 2005 press release, but that VeriTox itself wasn’t wronged by her statement.

Kelman and VeriTox, formerly known as a GlobalTox, filed a defamation suit against Kramer for comments she made in the press release “Jury Finds ‘Toxic Mold’ Harmed Oregon Family, Builder’s Arbitration Clause Not Binding.” They were seeking a monetary sum of $1 each.

Throughout the trial, attorney Keith Scheuer argued that the lawsuit was to “vindicate Kelman’s reputation and to get a finding that he didn’t lie under oath.”

At the heart of the weeklong trial was the phrase from Kramer’s three-page press release: “ … Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand” while he testified as an expert witness in an Oregon mold lawsuit.

Kramer published the press release after speaking to several sources, including the victim and his attorney.

“She had four sources, did a considerable amount of investigation and believed her story was correct,” Brandon Landlow, her attorney, said.

After speaking with jurors following the trial, he said he believed the panel had misunderstood the meaning of “actual malice” leading them to focus entirely on a belief that Kramer supposedly had some sort of animosity for Kelman, which was untrue and legally irrelevant.

“It’s not unusual for jurors to have a tough time with the concept of actual malice, because they focus on that second word malice not realizing that it doesn’t really mean the kind of malice people normally think, which is ill will or hatred,” Landlow said. “What it means is that you have to essentially know what you’re saying is untrue or have substantial overwhelming doubts that it’s true.”

Landlow said Kramer would most likely file an appeal.