Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton

491 U.S. 657 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was the unsuccessful candidate for the office of Municipal Judge in an election. D is the publisher of the Journal News, a local newspaper that supported the reelection of the incumbent, James Dolan. In about a month after the election, the incumbent's Director of Court Services resigned and was arrested on bribery charges. A grand jury investigation was underway when on November 1, 1983, D ran a front-page story quoting Alice Thompson, a grand jury witness, as stating that P had used 'dirty tricks' and offered her and her sister jobs and a trip to Florida 'in appreciation' for their help in the investigation. P filed an action for damages, alleging that the article was false, that it had damaged his personal and professional reputation, and that it had been published with actual malice. D filed a motion for summary judgment relying in part on an argument that even if Thompson's statements were false, the First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting of serious charges against a public figure. The District Court denied the motion. The jury unanimously found by a preponderance of the evidence that the November 1 story was defamatory and that it was false. It also found by clear and convincing proof that the story was published with actual malice. After a separate hearing on damages, the jury awarded P $5,000 in compensatory damages and $195,000 in punitive damages. The District Court denied a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and D appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. P appealed contending that the Court of Appeals made two errors: it applied a less severe standard than that of actual malice and erroneously applied a standard of '`highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.'' D also claims the Court of Appeals failed to make an independent de novo review of the entire record and therefore incorrectly relied on subsidiary facts implicitly established by the jury's verdict instead of drawing its own inferences from the evidence.