Klein said such accusations were made in 1983 when the Daily News, The Inquirer's sister newspaper, reported on the prior trial.

During the just-completed trial, Klein said, James E. Beasley , Sprague 's attorney, accused The Inquirer of "planting" a story in the New York Times to try to influence the outcome of the trial -a charge Klein denied.

During 11 days on the witness stand in the just-completed trial, Sprague testified that the 1973 article was an intentional "smear" and "an attempt to destroy" his reputation.

Roberts, who spent 17 days on the witness stand, insisted the article raised valid questions about Sprague 's conduct as a prosecutor in taking part in a case involving a personal friend.

Repeatedly, Roberts and Beasley crossed swords on the issue of freedom of the press.

Roberts said newspapers are given "wide latitude" under the Constitution and federal law to critically examine the conduct of public officials. The Inquirer, he said, was doing that in its 1973 story.

"Who elected you?" Beasley demanded at one point. "Who voted that you be a spokesman for this community?"

Beasley went through the story with Roberts in line-by-line detail, demanding to know at one point why the word whereupon was used, and what it meant.

"It would be a different story if you went over it the way we have, wouldn't it?" Beasley asked Roberts.

"No, I don't think it would be substantially different," Roberts answered. But he acknowledged that certain statements in the article were inaccurate.

At another point, Roberts told Beasley he was playing "word games." Bristling, Beasley snapped: "Mr. Roberts, please stop accusing me of playing word games."

Roberts answered: "Mr. Beasley , I'm never going to stop accusing you of playing word games."

In giving instructions to the jury before its deliberations, Judge Mirarchi said that the law sets a high burden of proof in libel cases involving public officials.

Since Sprague was first assistant district attorney when the 1973 article was published, Mirarchi said, the jury had to be persuaded by "clear and convincing evidence" that The Inquirer not only printed false information, but did so knowingly, thus acting with "actual malice."

Michael L. Levy, attorney for the newspaper, told the jury in his closing speech on Tuesday that the law establishes the high standard "not to protect the newspaper," but "to protect you and me so that we know what's going on in our government."

Beasley argued that newspapers do not have the right "to lie or stain one's reputation with falsity" when writing about public officials. This, he said, is what The Inquirer did in writing about Sprague .

Sprague 's assertion that the newspaper acted maliciously was based in large part on the fact that in 1972 he personally had won a conviction of Greg Walter, one of the reporters who worked on the 1973 article, for violating the Pennsylvania wiretapping statute. At the time the article was printed, Walter was awaiting a retrial in Common Pleas Court, with Sprague assigned to prosecute.

Walter had tape-recorded his own telephone calls without the knowledge of the other party while investigating alleged police corruption in the administration of former Mayor Frank L. Rizzo. At the time, Walter was working for the Bulletin under a one-year contract. After he was convicted in September 1972, the Bulletin did not renew his contract.

Roberts testified at the libel trial that he hired Walter at The Inquirer because he viewed him as a "pioneer" investigative reporter in Philadelphia who had been unjustly derailed by a dubious wiretap prosecution.

Walter also had been the victim of what Levy, the newspaper's attorney, termed a "dirty trick" when the Medical Examiner's Office declared him dead and subpoenaed his medical records in 1972.

Early in 1973, shortly after Walter began working at The Inquirer, an anonymous letter, containing references to the medical records, was sent to the newspaper suggesting that Walter was an unfit employee because of a history of mental instability and alcoholism.

Sprague contended at trial that Walter had vowed to "get" him in return for the wiretap prosecution - a charge the newspaper denied. Walter, who denied the accusation in a 1981 deposition, died last year.

Sprague won local fame during the 1960s as the dour homicide prosecutor who almost never lost a case. Twenty times, he testified at the libel trial, he sent murderers to death row.

In the early 1970s, he gained national prominence for his dogged, unrelenting crusade to convict the murderers of Joseph "Jock" Yablonski, a United Mine Workers reformer, who, along with his family, was shot to death by agents of union boss W.A. "Tony" Boyle on Dec. 31, 1969.

Since leaving the District Attorney's Office in 1974, Sprague has become one of the most successful private lawyers - and reputedly one of the wealthiest -in the city. In a Forbes magazine article last year, he was included in a list of the "best paid corporate lawyers" in America. The magazine estimated his 1988 income at $1.6 million.

Roberts, in his statement yesterday, said the newspaper was prohibited by Judge Mirarchi from presenting evidence at trial of Sprague 's income.

Sprague made no claim that he had suffered financial harm from the 1973 article. Rather, he contended, it had caused him great personal anguish and unjustly put a "taint" on his reputation.

Sprague appeared to fight back tears as he told the jury that even 17 years later, "it continues to hurt. It makes me feel, at what price does one perform public service?"

The April 1, 1973, article was published shortly after Sprague 's name arose in connection with a widely publicized wiretapping incident at a King of Prussia motel.

In November 1972, several state police officers were accused of tapping the phones of state Crime Commission agents who were quartered at the motel while conducting an investigation into Philadelphia police corruption.

Former Gov. Milton Shapp fired Rocco Urella Sr., then commissioner of state police, over the bugging incident.

During a 1973 state police court-martial in connection with the bugging, a state policeman testified that a confidential source had told him that Sprague had used a code name - Nicholas Pratko - to contact Urella during and after the bugging.

That information never was proven. The witness himself testified he did not believe that Sprague was "Pratko," and the Crime Commission later said there was no evidence of any such connection. Sprague issued a categorical denial at the time, and has held to the denial ever since. Urella has done the same.

According to testimony at the libel trial, reporters Kent Pollock and Walter began probing the relationship between Sprague and Urella in early 1973. Their interest was piqued when Sprague's former wife, Jackie, told Walter that she believed Sprague had "fixed" a homicide case involving Urella's son.

The victim in the March 3, 1963, homicide was John Applegate, 48, who had met Rocco P. Urella Jr., a student at La Salle College, and a college classmate, Donald Scalessa, in a bar and invited them to his apartment.

Once there, according to statements the youths made to police, Applegate made a homosexual advance; Scalessa punched him, and they fled. Applegate's roommate found him dead the next morning. The Medical Examiner's Office concluded death was the result of a blow to the head.

Sprague , as chief of the district attorney's homicide unit, recommended at a 1963 magistrate's hearing that charges against Scalessa be dismissed on grounds that he had punched Applegate in self-defense. Scalessa was discharged. No charges were ever filed against young Urella.

Roberts, in testimony at the libel trial, contended that Sprague left many questions unanswered. Roberts said that statements given by Applegate's roommate made it appear that young Urella, not Scalessa, had hit Applegate. Also, Sprague 's former wife signed an affidavit saying that

Rocco Urella Sr. made an urgent late- night phone call to the Sprague home in March 1963, and that Sprague later told her he had "taken care of" a case involving Urella's son.

Further, Roberts testified, Applegate had injuries that appeared to go beyond damage caused by a single punch - a cut on his scalp, a bruise on his shoulder, cuts on his hands, a bloody ear, bruises on his inner thigh and a scrape on the chin.

All of those factors, Roberts testified, justified the newspaper's examination of Sprague 's handling of the Applegate case.

Sprague , in his testimony, asserted that homicide detectives who investigated the Applegate case turned up no evidence implicating young Urella.

Sprague said the two students gave police similar accounts of the altercation with Applegate, and their statements were consistent with stories they told to classmates at La Salle College before they had learned that Applegate was dead.

Sprague said both youths also passed lie-detector tests after giving statements to police in 1963.

Sprague said Applegate had a police record for sodomy offenses - a point the 1973 article erroneously disputed. And finally, Sprague said he relied on the medical examiner's finding that Applegate's death was consistent with a single punch.

"There was never any thought from the police commissioner on down that (young) Urella should be arrested," Sprague testified.

Rocco Urella Jr., who did not testify at the trial, previously has denied any responsibility for Applegate's death. He also sued The Inquirer in connection with the 1973 article. A Common Pleas Court jury in 1985 awarded him $100,000 in damages.

Among the defense evidence Judge Mirarchi ruled out in the just-completed trial was a 1973 report by former State Attorney General Packel that concluded, after a review of the Applegate case, that there were a number of shortcomings in the original investigation. They included differences and conflicts in statements of witnesses, mistakes concerning blood tests, inadequate analysis of lie-detector tests and a failure to interview potential witnesses. Packel also questioned whether Sprague should have participated in the Applegate case, given his friendship with Urella.

Mirarchi also prevented the newspaper from calling witnesses for its defense who were quoted in the story, witnesses who would have testified that Sprague 's conduct was a conflict of interest and witnesses who would have testified that there were shortcomings in the original Applegate homicide investigation.

Roberts said in his statement: "Judge Mirarchi had been a subject of a 1983 Inquirer inquiry into nepotism. Eight members of his family were found to be on the court payroll."

The judge, contacted last night, said he was surprised at Roberts' comment and offended at the reference to nepotism.

"I think I tried the case absolutely fairly on all squares," Mirarchi said. He said he made rulings that were of benefit to both Sprague and The Inquirer. "At no time did they (the attorneys) say - or did I get any feeling - that there was any dissatisfaction on either side."

Mirarchi said he could not comment on specific rulings "because the matter is obviously not closed."

Evidence presented by Beasley included medical records of Walter's showing that he received treatment for alcoholism and depression in 1972 and 1973, and previously had been hospitalized for psychiatric problems.

Beasley also played tape recordings that Walter and Pollock secretly made of their interviews during their investigation of the Applegate case. The recordings were made while Walter was awaiting retrial in his own wiretapping case.

In one tape recording, made during an unannounced visit to the home of Donald Scalessa in Maryland in 1973, the reporters began asking Scalessa about the 10-year-old Applegate case.

Scalessa did not know the reporters were tape recording the conversation through a microphone in Walter's briefcase.

Scalessa said at one point, "I wouldn't want to be quoted on anything."

Walter replied: "I'm not writing anything down."

Walter also told Scalessa the interview was "all off the record," implying that Scalessa would not be quoted. Later, excerpts from the Scalessa interview were used in the April 1 article.

Beasley argued that the quotes selected for use in the April 1 article were ''distortions" that made it appear that Scalessa had changed his story about what happened in Applegate's apartment in 1963.

A transcript of the interview showed that Scalessa insisted repeatedly that he had told the truth at the time of Applegate's death.

"I went before a magistrate and I told him the truth," Scalessa told the reporters. "And the magistrate said this was a case of self-defense. And I feel it's a case of self-defense. I still feel that way."

Documents submitted to the jury included correspondence between Sprague and Inquirer editor Roberts in the days preceding publication of the April 1, 1973, article.

Twice in March 1973, Sprague wrote to Roberts saying that Walter had threatened to "get" him.

Roberts testified that he assigned Inquirer attorneys to check out the allegation, but that they were unable to confirm it. Even so, Roberts testified, he assigned the writing of the April 1 article to Pollock and disqualified Walter from interviewing Sprague .

Beasley called two of the newspaper's attorneys - David H. Marion, who no longer represents The Inquirer, and Samuel Klein - to testify. Klein said he did not recall checking Sprague 's allegations that Walter had threatened to ''get" Sprague before publication of the April 1 story.

Marion testified that he could not recall precisely what he did before publication of the article. After the article was published, both lawyers said, the allegation was checked and no support was found for it.

Sprague also refused to be interviewed by Pollock before the 1973 article, saying Pollock too was "out to get" him.

Pollock, now an editor for the Sacramento Bee in California, testified at the libel trial that he never was out to get Sprague . Pollock said his only purpose in investigating Sprague was to seek the truth.

After the 1973 article was published, Sprague wrote a 21-page letter to Roberts contending there were errors in it and charging that it contained ''outrageous smears . . . falsehoods, slanderous innuendos and malicious distortions."

The newspaper printed a second front-page article on April 8, 1973, quoting Sprague extensively. The second article, however, did not contain the key element that Sprague demanded - a retraction.

Roberts said at the time, and repeated in his testimony at the just- concluded trial, that the newspaper would not retract the story.

In one of their many sharp exchanges in the trial, Beasley , banging on a blown-up version of the 1973 story with a pointer stick, asked Roberts: ''Don't you consider this entire article an absolute abuse of your right to inform the public?"

"Absolutely not," Roberts answered. "Mr. Sprague should never have handled this case in the first place because he was a close friend of Rocco Urella."

Sprague said yesterday that the news media should "do an analysis of what he (Roberts) did in this case."

"It's ironic in a sense," Sprague said, "but I really believe that a free press is one of the most important basics - it's so fundamentally a part of our democracy; it's basic to having a good government."

Yesterday's jury verdict, he said, should be a warning that if the news media engage in abuses, "you're going to pay one hell of a penalty."