What Actually Happened in McCleary v. Nexstar

At the center of McCleary v. Nexstar is a simple but serious mistake. One that shows how quickly lives can be affected when basic verification doesn’t happen.

This case is not about fake news or made-up crimes. It is about what happens when the wrong person is shown as a criminal on television.

A Real Crime, A Real News Story

There was a real federal sex-trafficking case in Texas. It involved several defendants and was legitimately newsworthy.

An Oklahoma television station decided to report on that case for its viewers.

The Photo That Changed Everything

The original Texas news report did not include a photograph of one of the defendants, a man named Christopher McCleary.

To make the story more visually engaging, a local producer decided to add a photo. She searched the Oklahoma Department of Corrections website and found a mugshot of a man with the same name.

That man was not the defendant.

No Verification Took Place

The producer later admitted she was trained to verify the identities of criminal defendants by:

  • Checking court records.
  • Reviewing official databases.
  • Confirming details before publishing.

She also admitted she did not do any of that in this case.

Instead, she relied solely on the mugshot she found online.

An Innocent Man Was Shown as a Criminal

The photo aired belonged to Christopher Renyles McCleary, an Oklahoma resident with no connection to the Texas case.

Viewers saw his face while hearing about sex-trafficking charges, a crime he was never accused of and had nothing to do with.

The Lawsuit That Followed

After the broadcast, Mr. McCleary filed a lawsuit against the TV station and its parent company.

He alleged:

  • Defamation
  • False light invasion of privacy
  • Emotional distress

The station did not dispute that the photo was incorrect.

The Station Tried to End the Case Early

The media companies asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit using Oklahoma’s anti-SLAPP law, which is meant to protect free speech and news reporting.

Their argument was that the plaintiff had not met the high legal standard required to continue the case.

What the Court Decided

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled that:

  • A plaintiff does not need an expert witness to explain an obvious identity mistake
  • A jury can understand that falsely identifying someone as a criminal is harmful
  • The evidence presented was enough to allow the case to move forward

The court did not decide who ultimately wins. It only decided that the case deserves to be heard.

Why This Case Matters

This case is not about punishing journalism. It is about basic accuracy and accountability.

The court made clear that:

  • Anti-SLAPP laws protect responsible reporting.
  • They do not excuse avoidable mistakes.
  • Free speech and accountability can exist together.

A real crime was reported.
The wrong person’s photo was used.
No identity verification happened.
An innocent person was publicly linked to a serious crime.

The court ruled that he deserves his day in court.

And that distinction matters, for journalists, for the public, and for anyone who expects their name and face to be treated with care.



Smolen Law's mission is to provide exceptional legal services with integrity, professionalism, and respect.

Choose the Oklahoma law firm that gets results: Smolen Law.

The numbers don't lie...

$1,774,000 Bad Faith
$1,900,000 Birth Trauma
$6,011,855 Car Wreck
$250,000 Church Abuse
$8,757,500 Civil Rights
$1,008,000 Defective Product
$8,414,190 Insurance Bad Faith
$8,055,991 Medical Malpractice
$549,000 Medical Neglect
$746,250 Nursing Home Neglect
$1,739,632 Personal Injury
$175,000 Police Pursuit
$675,000 Premises Liability
$3,300,600 Products' Liability
$16,733,096 Semi-truck Accident
$130,000 Slip and Fall
$163,991 Sports Negligence
$5,730,048 Tractor roll-over
$241,854 Trust Dispute