The Sm ith v ill e Tim es is o wn e d b y Cox Te xas N e ws pa

pe rs , L .P. 1 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 504 -CV
Cox Texas Newspap ers, L.P . d/b /a Th e Sm ithvill e Tim es; Cox Te xas P artner s, Inc.

d/b /a Th e Sm ithvill e Tim es; and Tyan na Tyl er , Appellan ts
v. Charles P enick , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ASTROP COUNTY , 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 24,2 52 , HO NORAB LE VANN CULP , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N Appellants Cox Texas Newspa pers, L .P. d/b/a the Smithville Times , Cox Texas Partners, Inc., d/b/a the Smithville Times , and Ty anna T y l er ( “Cox Newspa pers” and “T y ler” or, collectively , “appe llants”) bring this int erloc utory appea l challeng ing the distri ct court’s partial 1 denial of a

ppellants’ motion for summary judgme nt in a defa

mation acti o n b roug ht by appellee Charles Penick. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a )(6) (West Supp. 2006).

District Attorney

Penick, a public fig ure, filed suit claiming that he had bee n defa med i nt h i rt ee np u

b l i ca t i o n s (i n cl u d i n g ar t i cl es , an e d i t o ri al s er i es , an d l et t er s t o t h e e d i t o r r ega rd i n g a murder trial prosec uted i n part by Penick) a ppear ing in the Smithville Times betwee n Aug ust 2, 2001, and January

3, 2002. The district cour t gr anted a

ppellants’ summary

judgme nt motion reg ardingSummary judgme nt w as g rante d as to one a rticle published on August 2 beca use Penick 2 f a il e d to f il e s u it o n th is arti c le w it h in th e o n e - y e ar s tatute o f li mi tati o n s . See T ex . Civ. P rac . & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.002 (West 2002). Summary judgme nt was g rante d on eig ht of the re maining editorials and letter s to the editor because the re w as not sufficie nt evidence to raise a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t on any of t he elements essential to maintain a de famation action by a public figure. See H uckabe e v. Time W

arner Entm’t Co. , 19 S.W .3d 413, 423 (Tex. 2000) (setting forth ele ments). I n te r lo c u to r

y a p p e a l o f th e p o rti o n o f th e o r d e r g r an ti n g a p p e ll an ts ’ s u mm ar

y judgme nt motion is not permitted by section 51.014(a) (6). Tex. Civ. Prac. & Re m. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (6) (We st Su pp . 2 0 0 6) . O ur

re vie w i s th e re fo re lim ite d to wh e the r s umm ary jud g me nt w a s a

pp ro pr ia te ly d e n i e d o nP e n i c k ’ s c l a i m s r e l a t e d t o t h e O c t o b e r

1 8 e d i t o r i a l , t h e D e c e mb e r 1 3 a n d J an u ar

y 3 article s, and the De cembe r 20 letter to the e ditor. 2 nine of the publications but de nied their motion reg ardingfour of the publications, which a ppear ed on October

18, Dec ember

13 and 20, and January

3. On appe al, Cox Newspa pers and Tyler a ssert 2 that t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt e r

r e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t a

g e n u in e is s u e o f

ma te r ia l f a c t r e ma in e d

a bout whether these four

publications were of a libelous nature beca use (1) the Octobe r 18 editorial wa s not “of a nd conce rning ” Penick, (2) t he Decembe r 13 and J anuar y 3 article s and the De cembe r 20 letter to the e d it o r

w e r e s u b s ta n ti a ll y tr u e , an d ( 3 ) Pe n ic k

f a il e d to p r e s e n t a

n y e v id e n c e o f

a c tu al
ma lic e re g ard ingany

of the se fo ur

pu bli c a tio ns . Be cause Penick fa i l s t o prese nt any evidenc e to demonstrate that the Octobe r 18
art ic le wa s “ of

and c on c e rn ing ” him

or that any of the dis pu te d p ub licat io ns were pu bli sh e d w ith
a c tua l ma lic e , w e will r e ve rs e the po rt ion of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r t hat de nie d a

pp e lla nts ’
su mma ry jud g me nt m oti on

a s to the se fo ur

pu bli c a tio ns and

re nd e r a take -n ot hi ng jud g me nt i n fa vo r o f a pp e lla nts
.Re e d c on tin ue s to a pp e a l th e ve rd ic t. Hi s a

pp lic a tio n fo r wr it of

ha be a s c or pu s is c ur re ntl y 3 pending befor e the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls. Ex parte Re ed , Cause No. WR-50, 961-03. Many other loca l and state publications reported the story , including the developing 4 al leg ations of offic ial misconduct. These included the Bastrop Advertiser , the Austin AmericanStatesman , the Au sti n Ch ro nic le , Te x as Mo nth ly , a

nd oth e rs . 3 BACK GR OUND This a ction arises out a serie s of ar ticles, editorials, and le tters to the editor published in late 2001 and e arly

2002 in the Sm ith v ill e Tim e s regard i ng the investig ation of Stace y Stit es’s murder a nd the subsequent tria l of her a ccuse d murdere r, Rodney Reed. On April 23, 1996, the body of Sta c e y Stit e s, a 19 -y e ar- old

wo man, wa s d isc ov e re d part ia lly un dr e sse d b e sid e a

c ountr y ro a d in Ba strop County . Stit es had be en sexually assaulted an d s t ra n gled. I nitially , the victim’s fianc é, J immy Fe nnell, J r., a Giddings police office r, was a suspect, but DNA evide nce f rom semen f

ound in Sti tes’s body

diverted the focus to Rodney Reed. Ree d wa s ar re s t ed , tried, and c onvicted of capital murde r. He was then sentenc ed to de ath in 1998. Appellee Charles Penick w as the B astrop 3 County District Attorney

at the time of Ree d’s trial. Penick e nlisted the Attorney Gene ral’s of

fice to le ad the prosec ution. Assist ant Attorney Gene ral L isa Tanne r wa s assig ned to the ca se and a cted as chie f prose cutor.

The Sm ith v ill e Tim es cover ed the story of t he murder investig ation and Ree d’s trial from 1996 through 2002. Appellant Ty anna T y ler, a repor ter for the Smithville Times , w a s in iti a lly 4 assig ned in 2001 to cover

a wr it of habea s corpus proc eedingin which Reed’ s attorney asser ted that DNA e vidence from saliva f ound on beer

cans ne ar Stites’s body

h ad been suppresse d during the trial by the prosec ution. Testing of the DNA e vidence ruled out Reed as a donor but could not exclude two police off

icer s who wer e fr iends of F ennel, the initial suspect in the murde r.4 There afte r, Tyler c ontinued to rese ar ch Reed’s c ase. She r ead the trial rec ord and investigative files and intervie wed Ree d, his family , friends, a nd defe nse counse l. Ty ler a lso asked David F isher—a loc al citizen who had pre viously conducte d his own independe nt investigations of public employ ees—to look into the “inconsistenc ies” of the Reed case . Tyler used some of F isher’s
re se arc h in

he r a rt ic le s. Tyle r a uth or e d a se ri e s o f t e n ed ito ri a l art ic le s h ig hli g hti ngwh y “ re a so na ble do ub t” exis ted in the Reed c ase a nd who may

have a cted inappr opriately in their offic i al ca p ac i ty . The Smithville Times ra

n the e dit or ia l se ri e s fr om Au g us t 2 to Oc tob e r 18 , 20 01
. Ei g ht of the e dit or ia ls pr e se nt a de ta ile d r e vie w o f t

he e vid e nc e and

are vo id o f c omm e nta

ry a bo ut t he pr os e c uti on . O nly the op e nin g and

c los inge dit or ia ls, pu

bli sh e d o n A ugus t 2 a

nd Oc tob e r 18, c on ta in T y le r’ s c ri tic ism of th e p ro s ec u t i o n. I n both, Ty ler re fer s expressly to Assistant Attorney

Gene ral L isa Tanne r. Penick is never

mentioned in the ten-pa

rt editorial ser ies by

name or by title. I n ear ly Dec ember

2001, Fisher

filed a co m plaint with the Travis County District Attorney ’s Special Prosec ution Publ ic I nteg rity Unit ag ainst Penick, Tanne r, Attorney Gene ral Gr eg Abb o tt , an d

th e Ca p it a l L it ig a ti o nD iv is io no f th e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l’ s o f

f ic e . F is h e r ’ s c o mp laint
a lle g e d v iol a tio ns of

Re e d’ s c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts , p ro se c uto ri a l mi sc on du c t, a nd a “con sp ira c y

to commit fraud.” The Smithville Times repor ted Fishe r’s filin g o n Dec ember 13, 2001, in an article with the headline “F raud Charg es filed on DA in Re ed Case.” This a rticle was not par

t of the te n- pa rt e d i t o r i a l s e r i e s , w h i c h h a d c o n c l u d e d o n O c t o b e r 1 8
. A l t h o u g h t h e D e c e mb e r 1 3 a rt ic le
acc urate ly repor

ted t he subst ance of F isher’s c omplaint, it i s undisputed that this article containe d three err ors—namely , that (1) Fisher ’s complaint had been f iled with the Attorney

Gene ral’s of

fice ,Fisher had first wr itten a letter to the e ditor publis h ed on Aug ust 23, 2001, in which he 5 ack n o w le d g e d th a t “ a r e p o rte r ” h a d r e qu e s te d th a t h e lo o k in to th e Re e d c a s e an d p rese nted the re a de rs wi th s ome of

his fi nd ing s a

bo ut i nc on sis ten cies in

the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at Re e d’ s tr ia l. I n this letter, Fisher

also commented on Penic k’s dec ision not t o s ee k re el ec tion. The letter wa s titled “Reade r asks DAPenick, ‘Which is it? ’” 5 (2) Ta nner had asser

ted at trial that she had made e very eff ort to deliver a

May 13 lab re port to the defe nse, and ( 3) the c hief c ounsel for the court of c riminal appea ls had advised Fisher to conta ct the FB Ior Judge Tow slee.

I n t he next issue publis hed on De cembe r 20, 2001, the Smithville Times p rinted a letter to the e ditor written by Fisher titled, “ Fisher appolog izes [sic] for error s.” The letter thanked 5 the paper for r eporting on the cha rg es that he f

iled ag ainst Penick and Ta nner a nd offe red c orre ctions to the three err ors containe d in the Dec ember 13 article
. Specifica lly , Fisher ’s Dec ember 20 letter stated that “the resulting fewerr ors that nee d to be re stated ar e my fault”: First, I filed the c omplaint with the Travis County District Attorney ’s Special Prosecution/Public I nteg rity Unit, not with the Attorney Gene ral’s O ffice
. Second, it was at the hear ing that L isa Tanne r asse rted t h at s h e made ever y e ff or t to de liv e r t

he May 13 th l a b r e po rt to t he De fe ns e , n ot at th e tr ia l. Th ir d, Ge or g e Wet zel , Co un se l of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls d id n ot a dv ise me to c ontact the FB I or J udg e Towslee. The FB I asked that I notify J udg e Towslee and [Re e d’ s] a tto rn e y

of my fi nd ing s.
On J anuar

y 3, 2002, the Smith vi l l e T i mes published a y ear -in-re view ar ticle that highlig hted prominent hea dlines from the y ear 2001, cata logue d by month. Under the “ Dec ember ” heading , one hea dline rea d “F raud c har ges filed on D.A . in Reed ca se by citizen in county .” The6

headline ha d been a ltered f rom its orig inal publication to inc lude “by citizen in county .” Other wise, there was no fur

ther e x planation of the c ontent of the a rticle a s orig inally

printed. Pe n ic k f il e d s u it a g a in s t Co x N e w s p a p e r s an d T y le r a s s e rti n g th a t h e had bee n defa med by the ar

ticles, editorial ser ies, and letter s to the editor published in the Smithville Times betwee n Aug ust 2, 2001, and J anuar y 3, 2002. Appellants soug ht both a traditional and a no evidenc e summary

judgme nt on all of Penick’s c laims. See Te x. R. Civ . P. 166a(c ), (i). The district court g ran t ed par

tial summary

judgme nt in appellants’ fa vor on nine of the thirteen disputed publications but ruled that a g enuine issue of materia l f act rema ined as to the de famatory char acte r of the four

publications on October

18, Dec ember

13 and 20, and January

3. Cox Newspa

pers a nd Tyler now br ing this interlocutor y appea l of the district court’ s order , urg ing that the court e rre d by not gr anting summary

judgme nt as to these four publications on the ba sis that Pe nic k f

a ile d to pr od

uc e any e vid e nc e on a t lea st o ne e le me nt o f h is d e fa ma tio n c la ims reg ardingeac h publication or, alter natively , beca

use appe llants conclusively disproved at lea st one element of

eac h of hi s claims as a matter of law. Specifica lly , appellants c laim that no ge nuine issue of fa ct re mains about the def amatory nature of any

of the four

publications beca

use (1) the O ctober 18 editorial is not “ of and conce rning ” Penick, (2) the Dec ember 13 and J anuar y 3 article s and the Dec ember

20 letter to the e ditor and ar e substantially true, a nd (3) none o f these publications was published with actual malice
.7 AN AL YSI S Stand ard of Review

When a par

ty seeks b o t h a tra ditional and a no evide nce summar y judgme nt, we first revie w the trial c ourt’s summary ju d gm en t u n d er the no evidenc e standa rds of rule 166a(i). Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W .3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004)
. I f the nonmovant fa iled to produce
mor e tha n a sc int ill a of e vid e nc e rai si ng a

g e nu ine fa c t is su e on

the c ha lle ng e d e le me nts of his claims, then there is no need to analy ze whether the m ovant’s summary judgme nt proof satisfied the traditional summary

judgme nt burden of pr oof under rule 166a (c)
. Id. A n o e vid e nc e mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt m

us t be g ra nte d if , a ft e r a n a de qu a te time fo r d i s co v er y , (1) the movingparty asser ts that there is no evide nce of one or more essential
e le me nts of

a c la im o r def

e ns e on wh ic h a n a dv e rs e pa

rt y wo uld have the burd e n o f p ro of a t tr ia l, and (2) the nonm ovant fails to produce more than a scintilla of summary

judgme nt evidence raising a g enuine issue of m ater ial fac t on those elements. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). In a ca se whe re the trial
c ourt ’s jud g me nt d oe s n ot s pe c if y the g ro un ds re lie d u

po n f or its ru lin g , the su mma

ry jud g me nt m

us t be af firmed if a

ny of the theories a dvance d is meritorious. Carr v. Brasher , 776 S.W .2d 567, 569 (T e x. 19 89 ); Sh esh un off

v . S he sh un off , 172 S.W .3d 686, 692 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). I n revie wing a no evidenc e summary judgme nt, w e “must examine the entire r ecor d in the light mos t favor able to the nonm ovant, i ndulging ever y rea sonable infe renc e and r esolving any doubts ag ainst the m otion” to deter mine whether more than a scintilla of evidenc e wa s prese nted on the cha lleng ed ele ments of the nonmovant’s c laim. City of Keller v. W ilson , 168 S.W .3d 802, 825 (Tex. 2005); Perdue v. Pat ten Corp. , 142 S.W .3d 596, 604 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). More8

than a sc intill a of suppor

ting e vidence exis ts if the evidenc e would allow r easona ble and f air-minded people to differ in their c onclusions. King Ranch, Inc. v

. Chapman , 118 S.W .3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). “L ess than a sc intill a of e vidence exis ts when the e vidence is ‘so weak as to do no more than cre ate a mere surmise or sus picion’ of a fact.” Id
. (q u o t i n g Kindred v . Con/Chem, Inc ., 65 0 S. W.2 d 6 1, 63 (T e x. 19 83 )) . B e c a us e the pr opri ety of granti nga su mma ry jud g me nt i s a question of l aw, we review t he trial court’s dec ision de novo
. Natividad v . Alexsis, Inc ., 875 S.W .2d 695, 699 (Tex. 1994). L ikewise, summ ary judgme nt is revie wed in publi c figure or public officia l defa mation case s under the sa me standar d as in other c ases. See H uckabe e v. Time W

arner Entm’t Co. , 19 S.W .3d 413, 423 (Tex. 2000) (holding that “we decline to a dopt the clea r-a nd-convinc ing standard at the summary

judgme nt stag e of a

public-fig ure de famation case” ). To pr e va il i n a

de fa ma tion case , a p la int if

f who is a pu bli c of fi c ia l or fi g ur e mus t p r o v e t h a tt h e d e f

e n d an t( 1 ) p u

b l i s h e d a f a l s e s t a t e m e n ta

b o u tt h e p l a i n t i f

f , ( 2 ) t h a tw a s d e f

a m a t o r y, (3) while acting with actual malice
. Id. a t 42 0; see also Grotti v. Belo Corp. , 188 S.W .3d 768, 774 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 2006, pet. denied).
“Of and Con cer nin g”

As Penick conc edes, to pr evail on his de famation claim, he must produce e vidence that the disputed publications wer e “of and conc erning ” him. See Ne w Y ork Times v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 288 (1964); Robert D. Sac k, Sack on D efamation § 2.9 (3d ed. 2006) . “The re must be evidenc e sho wi n g t h at the attac k was re ad as spe cifica lly direc ted at the plaintiff.” Rosenblatt v. Baer , 383 U.S. 75, 81 (1966). In o t h er w ords, the publication “must re fer to some asce rtained or
asce rtainable p er son and that per son must be the plaintiff.” Ne wsp ap e rs, In c . v . M att he ws , 3399

S.W. 2d 89 0, 89 3 ( Te x. 19 60 ); see also Huc kabee , 1 9 S. W.3 d a t 42 9 ( do c ume nta

ry fi lm’ s f a lse state me nt r e g ardi ng “si ngle fa mil y c ourt ” wa s n ot e xpre ssl y or imp lic itl y

dir e c te d at pl a int if

f i n particula r, so was n o t d ef

am atory ). Even if the plaintiff is not expressly named, the pla intiff may
satis fy his burd e n o n th e “ of

and c on c e rn ing ” e le me nt b y

of fe ri ngpr oo f t

hat pe rs on s a c qu a int e d w ith th e p la in ti f

f w o u ld u n d e r s ta

n d th e p u b li c a ti o n to r e f

e r to h im. Ma tth e ws , 339 S.W .2d a t 89 4; see also Harvest House P ubls. v. The Local Church , 190 S.W .3d 204, 213-14 (Tex . App.—Houston [1st Di st.] 20 06 , p e t. d e nie d) ; Eskew v . Plantation Foods, Inc. , 905 S.W .2d 461, 462 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, no writ); Po e v . S an An ton io E

x pr ess- Ne ws Co rp ., 590 S.W .2d 537, 542 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1979, writ ref ’d n.r.e .). Her e, Penick doe s n o t deny that he wa s never

mentioned by

name or office in the October 18 article , nor in any

of the other nine editorials authored by Ty ler fr om Aug ust 2 to October 18 . In r e le va

nt p art , th e Oc tob e r 1 8 a

rt ic le re a ds :
Reasonable doubt exi sts in thi s case . I n fac t, Iam of the opin i o n t h at the whole case is f

lawed from the word g o, and that the U.S. Justice Depa rtment nee ds to launch an inve stigation. I am awa re that the Attorney

Gene ral’s O ffice has l au n ch eda c ri m i n al i n v es t i gat i o n i n t o t h i s ca s e. I h av e h ea rd ru m o rs o f j u ry ri ggi n g, evidenc e tamper ing, w itness intimidation, doc ument fra ud, and illeg al mag istration [ s i c ] c h ar g e s , w h i c h c o u l d p r o v e t o b e t r

u e . I h a v e o v e r

h e ar d J u d g e s an d

A t t o r n e ys make state me nts lik e , th e y “ wo uld n’ t touc h this c a se wi th a te n- fo ot pol e be c a us e it had Towslee ’s fing erpr ints all over it,” and “ it was not something that they even wanted to think about.” * * * * The e n ti r e p r o s e c u ti o n ’ s c a s e w a s b a s e d o n a f a ls e p r e mi s e . A d e a d body fo un d in a pa rt ia l st a te of

un dr e ss d oe s n ot c on sti tut e a g g ra va te d s e xua l a ssa

ult resulting in murder. Minimal semen c ells l o gi cally don’t support rec ent or ‘f resh’ semen nor do the y

prove se x ual assault. Any time the re is pr osecutoria l a nd defe nsive e vid e nc e se a le d d

ur ingthe pr e -t

ri a l ph a se o b v i o u s l y

t h e re are so me pr ob le ms e vid e nt.10

Any time y ou have one law enforce ment ag ency keepingevidenc e fr om another one , which super sedes it, y ou have pr oblems with evidence and the investig ation.
Th e art icl e th e n d e ta ils se ve ra l a c tio ns by va ri ou s p oli c e of

fi c e rs that T y le r f

e lt demonstrated why the “ca se is flawed f rom the word g o.” For

example, the article discusses that the orig inal suspect’s vehicle was not pr operly inventoried, that crime sc ene photos we nt undeveloped fo r f if te e n mo nth s, that D NAte sti ngwa s nev e r c on du c te d o n ava ila ble sampl e s, and

that mu lti ple po lic e re po rt s w e re fl awe d o r i nc on sis te nt w ithoth e r e vid e nc e . In so do ing , the art ic le sp e c if ic a lly names four

office rs, re fer s multi ple times to “ the DPS,” a nd ref ere nces the medical e x aminer by title. The article then discusses the a ctual evide nce pr esente d in the case , with Ty ler’s c ommentary about various inconsist encie s. The ar ticle spec ifically

names Judge T owslee, noting problems with the
or de rs he ha d e nte re d in the c a se, and

name s th e “ State ’s Ap po int e d Sp e c ia l Pr os e c uto r, L isa Tanne r,” statingthat she “ha d been br oug ht before the S tate Bar for prose cutorial misconduct a nd alleg ations about the evide nce suppr ession in this ca se.” The a rticle c oncludes by

char acte rizing the Rodney Reed c ase a s one that could be come the “ca se i n point” to “fix t he proble ms of the indige nt defe nse pra ctices in the State of Texas.” Al t h o u gh t h e article criticizes the manner in which the prosec ution was conduc ted, only the Attorney

Gene ral’s of

fice and Ta

nner a re na med in this critique. Nowher e in the Oc tober 18 a rticle is Penick mentioned, e ither by name, title, or implication. At best, a c onnection could be draw n betwee n Penick and the Octobe r 18 ar ticle on the basis that, as the D istrict Attorney , he wa s responsible for supe rvising pr osecutions in Ba strop County . Pe nic k c ite s Sellards v. Expre ss-News Corporat ion for support. See 702 S.W .2d 677, 680 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa

n A nto nio 19 85 , w ri t r e f’ d n .r .e .) (“ Whe n a group is n a me d a nd the pla int if

f i s a11

rea dily identifiable membe r of the g roup, a cause of action for de famation ex ists if those who know and ar e ac quainted with the plaintiff under stand the ar ticle re fer s to the plaintiff.”). I n Sellards, a private c itiz en sued f

or def amation when a

car cra sh, in which she wa s a passe ng er, w as desc ribed b y a re p o rt er as a “dr

ug -induce d suicide.” Id
. a t 6 7 8
. T h e w o r d in g o f th e p u b li c a ti o nc o u ld

have been inter prete d as mea

ning that all passeng ers of the ca r we re involved in drug s or suicide. Id. at 680. Thoug h the plaintiff wa s not named as a passeng er in the c ar, those who knew he r we re a war e that she was a passeng er in the c ar. Id . Thus, the ar ticle was “ of and c oncer

ning” the plaintiff. Id
. Ho we ve r, the Un it ed Stat e s Su pr e me Court

ha s se t a se pa ra te sta nd ard fo r p ub lic officia ls who supervise g overnme nt ag encie s . Sullivan , 376 U.S. at 289. An impersonal attack criticizing the a ctions of a g overnme ntal ag ency without r efe rring specific ally to its age nts, without more, will not support a cla im of libel by the hea d of that ag ency . Id . (statements c riticizi ng police operations we re insufficient to e stablish libel ag ainst county commissione r w h o was responsible for

oversig ht of police depar tment). In Sullivan , the Court held that “the ba re f act that the [county

commissioner plaintiff] was in ove rall cha rg e of the Police Depa

rtment and, thus, bore officia l responsibility

for police conduct” was insuffic ient to support the plaintiff’s cla im that he had been persona lly

attacke d by

an ar ticle cr iticiz ing police operations. Id . The Sullivan Court fu rt he r e xpla ine d th a t:
to the extent that som e of the witnesses thoug ht the [pl aintiff] to have bee n char g ed wi th o rd e ri ngor

a pp ro vin g the c on du c t or oth e rw ise be ing pe rs on a lly inv olv e d in it, they have ba sed this notion not on any statements in the [publi cation], and not on any evi den ce that he ha d in fa c t be e n s o invo lve d, bu t s o le ly o n th e u n s u

p p o rted assumption that, because of his official pos ition, he must have be en .12

Id
. at 2 89 n.28 (empha sis added). B eca use the stateme nts in Sullivan ref err ed to only

the g ov e rnme nta l a g e nc y

su pe rv ise d b y

the pla int if

f, wi tho ut “ mak[in g ] even an obliq ue re fe re nc e to [p la in ti f f ] a s anin d iv id

u a l, ” th e y w e r e n o t d e f

amato r y a s a matt e r o f la w. Id. a t 28 9; se e als o Huck abee , 19 S.W .3d at 429 (stateme nt that “was [] a criticism of the family courts in g ener al and not of J udg e Huc kabee in particular ” wa s not actionable)
.

Th e Sup re me Court

re a ff ir me d it s Sullivan holding in Rosenblatt v. Baer , stating that
a pu bli c fi g ur e pla int if

f m ay no t pr e va il in a de fa

ma tio n c la im b a se d o n a

n a rt ic le c ri tic izin g “ a

sma ll g roup ac ting f

or an org an of g overnme nt, only some of whom wer e implicated, but a ll of whom wer e tinge d with suspicion.” See 38 3 U .S. a t 82
. Ac c or din g to the Court , “ [a] th e or y that th e c olumn c a st ind isc ri min a te su sp ic ion

on the me mbe rs of

the g rou p res po ns ibl e fo r t he c on du c t of

thi s g overnme ntal operation is t antamount to a dema nd for recove ry based on libel of gove rnment, and there fore is constituti onally insufficient.” Id . at 83. The holding s of Sullivan and Ro se nb lat t we re su c c inc tly

su mma ri ze d b y t he Sup re me Court of Vi rg ini a , a s f

oll ow s: [T] he use of

the “small g roup theory” alone as the ba sis for satisfying the “of a nd conce rning ” ele ment of a c ommon law defa mation action ag ainst a g overnme ntal actor does not survive c onstitut ional scrutiny . . . . A m em b er o f a gove rnmental g roup ag ainst which an a lleg edly defa matory st at ement is made c an sustain a common law ac t i o n fo r d efa mation only

if that member c an show the state ment specific ally

implicated that m ember or each member of the g roup. Such implication can be shown by

extrins i c evidence, but evidenc e that other s “under stood” the imp lic a tio n b a se d s ole ly

up on a pla int if f’ s me mbe rs hip in t

he re fe re nc e d g ro up wi ll no t satis fy

the “ of and c on c e rn ing ” re qu ir e me nt.
Dean v . Dearing , 561 S.E.2d 686, 689 (Va. 2002) (citations omitted).A s s u p p o rtf o r t h e “ o f an d c o n c e r n i n g ” e l e m e n t , P e n i c k

a l s o p o i n t s t o t h e s u

b s e qu e n t l y- 6 published Dec ember

13 and January

3 “F raud Char g es F i l ed on D.A.” a rticle a nd headline. E ven if we w ere to consider other publications in determining whether the Octobe r 18 ar ticle was “ of and conce rning ” Penick, we could not include the De cembe r an d J anuar y article s in such a re view beca use they had not bee n published at the time of the Oc tober 18 a rticle. 13 Although Penic k was involved in the prosec ution, there is no evidenc e to show that
rea ders would associate the ar ticle’s cr iticism wit h him indivi dually
. Ne wsp ap e rs , 339 S.W .2d at 28 9- 29 0; Sellards , 702 S.W .2d at 680. Acc ording ly , under the standard a nnounced in Sullivan and Ro se nb lat t , Penick ca

nnot establish that t h e October 18 a rticle is “of

and conc erning ” him based solely on the fa ct that he supervised those specific ally named or beca use he assumed that his status
as a public fig ure w ould cause people to assoc iate him with the article
. Se e Ro se nb lat t , 383 U.S. at 82-83; Sullivan , 376 U.S. at 289.

Ac kn ow le dg ingthat the Oc tob e r 1 8 a rt ic le ne ve r m e nti on s h im, Pe nic k urg e s th is Court to look outs ide the four corne rs of th e ar t i cl e an d consider whether a re ader would have associate d the ar

ticle with him based on other publica tions in t he Smithville T

i mes that wer e not included in the ten- part editorial series—na mely , an August 23 letter to the e ditor written by Fisher and a Sept em b er 20 article written by editor Metta Johnson. Pe nic k c ite s Buck v. Savage , 323 6 S.W .2d 363 (Tex. App.—Houston 1959, writ denied) , and Gibler v. Houston Post Co. , 310 S.W .2d 377 (Tex. App.—Houston 1958, writ denied) , in support. Both Buck and Gibler involved article s tha t m a d e r e f

e r e n c e t o ani n d i v i d

u a l w h o , b y

t h e “ c i r c u m s t an c e s ” i nt h e art i c l e , m i g h tb e r e a dil y identified. See B uck, 3 23 S.W. 2d a t 37 6- 77 ; Gibler , 310 S.W. 2d a t 385. Pe nic k use s the se c a se s to support quite a diffe rent a ssertion—that one a rticle re fer encinga g o v er n m en tal g roup may beAlthough not co n t rol ling, we find Early v. Toledo Blade , 720 N.E.2d 107 7 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998), instructive be cause of its fac tual simil arities to this case . There , the Toledo Blade ra n a mul ti- pa rt e dit or ia l se ri e s in ve sti g a tin g the int e rn a l a ff a ir s o f t he loc a l po lic e de pa

rtme nt. Id . at 113 -1 4
. S ev er al police of fice rs sued for

defa mation, and the trial c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of the Toledo Blade
. Id . at 114. The a ppellate c ourt held that statements a bout “drugand alc ohol abuse by public serva nts, misplace d values, and the corr uption of our sy stems, . . . a lc oh ol c a se s w he re of

fi c e rs we re c arr

y ing g un s, . . . [an d] ne g le c t of du ty c a se s” we re no t a c tio na

ble beca use they wer e “not ‘ of and c oncer ning’ any one individual.” Id
. at 121-22. Fur ther, re g arding on e pa rt ic ula r p la int if f, the c ourt hel d tha t a

su bs e qu e nt p ub lic a tio n s e ve ra l da y s late r s pe c if

ic a lly 14 deeme d “of a

nd conce rning ” an unidentified member of the g roup if that individual’s name ha s been
us e d in pa st a rt ic le s a pp e ari ngin t

he same pe ri od ic a l. Pe nic k h a s c ite d n o a

uth or ity fo r t his the or y . Exami nin g a ll r e la te d p ub lic a tio ns is
an ac cepte d prac tice when evaluating the issue of ac tual malice be cause it can illuminate a per sonal vendetta of

the def endant, whic h demonstrates the d ef en d an t’s state of mind at the time of publication. Fr e e do m N

e wsp ap e rs o

f Te x . v . Ca ntu , 168 S.W .3d 847, 858 (Tex. 2005). However, ap p l y i n g t h e s am e t ec h n i qu e t o d et er m i n e w h et h er a p ar t i cu l ar

p u b l i ca t i o ni s “ o f a n d

co n ce rn i n g” the pla int if

f— wh e n th e fo c us re ma ins on wh e the r t he sp e c if ic pu bli c a tio n is de fa

ma tor y a t a ll— is novel. Rather, the Supreme Court ha s es t ab l i s hed that the spe cific publication cannot be “ of and
conce rning ” the plaintiff if it does not “make e ven an oblique r efe renc e to [ t h e plainti ff] as an individual.” Sullivan , 376 U.S. at 289.

Although w e r ec o gnize that defamation claims should be review ed in context, our
c on c e rn is w he re the inq

uir y wo uld sto p und e r P e nic k’ s a

na ly sis . Pen ic k is a

pu bli c fi g ur e wh o is likely to be mentioned fr equently by the media. The rule c annot be that a newspa per’ s individual
re fe re nc e to a

pu bli c fi g ur e in a

n a rt ic le publ is hed month s e arl ie r c ou ld b e us e d to tr ans fo rm a
su bs e qu e nt a

rt ic le , w hic h n e ve r m e nti on s the pu bli c fi g ur e , int o on e that is “ of and c on c e rn ing ” him
. 7naming that plaintiff did not turn the prior a rticle into one “ of and c oncer ning” that plaintiff. Id . at 122. Moreove r, re g ar d i n g ea ch of the defa mation plaintiffs, the appe llate cour t considere d the multipl e publications collec tively to determ i n e wh ether

they wer e of a

defa matory char acte r and published with a ctual malice, but de clined to c onsider them collectively in determining whether any article in particular

was of a nd conce rning the plaintiffs. Se e ge ne ra lly id
. at 123-35. 15 Rather , the test requir es us to deter mine whether

a per son would understand the individual publication at issue to implicate Penick. Se e Ne wsp ap e rs , 339 S.W .2d at 289-290.

Her e, the Oc tober 18 a

rticle doe s not make eve n an oblique re fer ence to Penick, either as an individu al o r i n h i s capa city as the District Attorne y . See Sullivan , 376 U.S. at 289. Ac c or din g ly , Pe nic k h a s f a ile d to pr od

uc e any e vid e nc e to de mon str a te that the Oc tob e r 1 8 a rt ic le was “ of and c oncer

ning” him. The district court, therefor e, er red in de ny ing a

ppellants’ summary judgme nt motion as to t his article. We sustain appe llants’ first issue.

Wit h reg ard to the r emaining publications—the Dec ember 13 and January

3 article s and the D ec em b er 20 le tter to the editor—we turn to appellants’ third issue be cause the lack of evidenc e of a ctual malice is disposi tive.
Act ual Malice The Te xa s Su p r e me Co u rt h a s arti c u late d s ta n d ar d s f o r an a ly zi n g th e e xis te n c e of actua l malice in public fig ure de famation cases a g ainst media def endants. S

ee, e.g. , Can tu , 168 S.W. 3d a t 84 9 (m e dia de fe nd ants e nti tle d to su mma ry jud g me nt on

pu bli c fi g ur e ’s de fa

ma tio n c la im b e c a u s e n o e v i d e n c e o f

a c tu a l ma lic e ); He arst Corp. v. Skeen , 159 S.W .3d 633, 639 (Tex. 2005) (s a me ); New Times, I

nc. v. Isaac ks , 1 46 S.W. 3d 14 4, 16 8 ( Te x. 20 04 ) ( same ); Huck abee , 19 S.W .3d at 417 (same)
. To establish defa mation, a public fig ure pla intiff car ries the bur den to prove that the16

defe ndant published the statements with ac tual malice. Skee n , 1 59 S.W. 3d a t 63 7 n .1 ; Huck

abee , 19 S.W .3d at 420. The pur pose of requiring public figures to ove rcome this hig h burden is to protec t uninhibited debate on public issues. Isaack s , 146 S.W .3d at 161-62, 165. At the su mma

ry jud g me nt s ta g e , th e me dia de fe nd ant c an n e g ate that it a c ted with
a c tu a l m a l i c e , a s a m a t t e r o f l aw , b y p r o v i n g t h a t i t d i d n o t p u b l i s h t h e art i c l e s a t is su e wi th knowledg e of falsity or a rec kless disreg ard f or the truth. Can tu , 168 S.W .3d a t 85 3; Huck abee , 19 S.W .3d at 420. Actual malice has been describe d as “calculated fa lsehood.” Isaack s , 146 S.W .3d at 162. W h er ea s “k nowledg e of f alsity is a relatively

clea r standar d, [] rec kless disreg ard is . . . a subjective standa

rd” that, to be disproved, re quires evide nce that the media def endant did not enter tain any serious doubts about the truth of the a rticle at the time it wa s p u b l ished. Skee n , 159 S.W .3d at 637.

The de fenda

nt can e stablish such proof through the submissi on of af fidavits, so long as t h e y ar e “ c le ar , p o s it iv e , an d d ir e c t, o th e r

w is e c r e d ib le an d

f r e e f r o m c o n tr a d ic ti o n s and inc on sis te nc ie s, and

c ou ld h a ve be e n re a dil y

c on tr ov e rt e d. ” Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (c ); Isaack s , 146 S.W .3d a t 16 3- 64 . “ I n a c tua l ma lic e c a se s, su c h a ff ida vit s mus t e sta

bli shthe de fe nd ant’ s b e lie f i n the cha lleng ed stateme nts’ truth and provide a plausible ba sis for this belief.” Huck abee , 19 S.W .3d at 424. Such af

fidavits wi ll not be deemed “ conclusory” if they “provide [a] detailed e x planation of the aff iants’ state of mind and de scriptions of the steps take n to ensure that the article [was not p ublished with knowledg e of f alsity or with a re ckless disreg ard f or the truth].” S

e e Isaack s , 146 S.W .3d at 165.Although the United States Supreme Court ha s ruled that the clea r and c onvincing standard 8 of pr oo f i s r e qu ir e d f

or act ual malice in s umm ary jud g me nt c a se s und e r F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Procedur e 56, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc ., 47 7 U. S .2 42 , 25 5- 57 (1 98 6) , the Te xas S up re me Court ha s n ot a do pte d th is v ie w for su mm ary jud g me nt p ro c e e din g s und e r T e xas R ule of Civ il Procedur e 166a, see Fr e e do m Ne wsp ap e rs of Te x . v . Ca ntu , 168 S.W .3d 847, 859 n.49 (Tex. 2005). 17 Once the def

endant produce s some evidenc e that it did not a ct with actual malice , the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produc e evide nce of the contra

ry . Cantu, 168 S.W
. 3 d at 8 53; Huck abee , 19 S.W .3d at 420. At this stage , we assume all fac ts f avora ble to the nonmovant ar e true and draw all rea sonable inferenc es i n its favor. Huck abee, 19 S.W. 3d

a t 42 4. I f t

he pla int if

f f a ils to p r o d u c e a s c in ti ll a o f e v id e n c e to c r e a te a g e n u in e is s u e o f mate r ia l f a c t a b o u t th e exis tence of actua l malice, then summary judgme nt is appropriate , pursuant to either a tra ditional or

no-evide nce analy sis. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c), ( i). 8

He re , th e a

pp e lla nts su pp or te d th e ir mot ion s f

or su mma ry jud g me nt w itha ff

ida vit s from Tyler, the a

uthor of the articles in question, and fr om Metta J ohnson, the manag ing e ditor of the Sm ith v ill e Times at the time of the disputed publications

. Ty ler averr ed that, in pre paration for the se ri e s, sh e re se arc he d th e po lic e re po rt s, me dic a l e xami ne r’ s r epo rt , tr ia l tr ans c ri pts , a pp e a ls, inv e sti g a tiv e re po rt s o f t

he Te xas R ang e rs , a

nd pr e ss a rt ic le s from ot her pu

bli c a tio ns . Sh e a lso interviewe d Reed’s f

amily , friends, attorney s, and private investigators. Tyler a cknowledg ed that she solicited Fishe r’s view point on the Reed ca se and stated that she trusted him ba sed on his prior
succe ss investigating public officials. Tyler further averr ed that she had no contempt for Penick and, in fac t, never

mentioned Penick’s name in he r editorial series. Tyler stated in he r af fidavit that she believed a ll the fac t s re p re s en ted in her a rticles to be true at the time of publication and, with theThis is confirmed by t h e re co rd , which includes le tters to the editor a ppear ing in the 9 Smithville Times on September 20 and October 25 criticizing Tyler’s editorial ser ies and e spousing vie ws that Re e d is g uil ty

be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. 18 exception of the few non-mater ial fac ts that Fisher c orre cted in his Dec ember 20 letter to the e ditor, she still believes them to be true.

J ohnson’s aff

idavit expresses that she believe d the Reed c ase w as an important ne ws event in Bastrop Count y . Acc ording to her affidavit, J ohnson assig ned Tyler to re port on a ha beas corpus he aring in Marc h 2001, but Ty ler c ontinued rese arc hing the Reed c ase on he r own initiative. After Ty ler e x plained to J ohnson many of the inconsistenc ies that Tyler saw in the case and the
re a so ns fo r h e r o pin ion s, John so n a g re e d that an e dit or ia l se ri e s wo uld be a pp ro pr ia te be c a

us e the se inc on sis te nc ie s “ ha d n ot g ott e n mu c h c ov e ra g e duri ng the Re e d tr ia l.” John so n ave rr e d th a t sh e did not have a

ny animosity

toward Penic k and that, in her opi n i on, Penick was e x cluded f rom the editorial ser ies bec ause he was not re levant to the inconsistencie s discovered b y Tyler. Johnson further aver red that, as editor, she publish ed l etters to the e ditor on both sides of the issue. 9 Additionally , J ohnson’s aff idavit noted t hat t he errors contained in Tyler’s Dece mber 13 a rticle we re
corr ecte d by publishing Fisher ’s Dec ember 20 letter to the editor. J ohnson believes that the editorial
se ri e s e xpre sse d “h on e st opi nio ns ” a bo ut t he Re e d c a se and

that th e De c e mbe r 1 3 a

rt ic le “ a c c ur a te ly
rec ount[ ed]” Fisher ’s alleg ations conce rning Penick.

I n their re spective a ffidavits, both Tyler a nd J ohnson aver

that t h ey b eli eved the repor ts to be acc urate at the time of publication, explain what their state of mind was at the time, and provide de scriptions of why they had a r easona

ble belief i n t h e t rut h of the a rticles. Isaack

s , 146 S.W .3d at 165; Huck

abee , 19 S.W .3d at 424. These aff idavits satisfy

appellants’ initial burde n on19

neg ating actua l malice as a matter of la

w in order

to shift the burden to Penick to pre sent evidenc e establishing a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t about the ex istence of actua l malice in this case. Can tu , 168 S.W .3d at 853.

Penick ra ises seven points that he believes support hi s assertion of a ctual malice : the appellants (1) failed to tell the re ader th at T ra v i s County

was not investig ating Fisher ’s letter, ( 2) printed dubious information from a biased sourc e, (3) hid f

rom the rea der the re lationship between the Smithvill e T

imes and F ish e r, (4 ) o mitte d c omp lim e nta ry state me nts a

bo ut P e nic k f

ro m a candidate’s ca

mpaig n announce ment published in the Smithville Times , (5) p re d i cted future p u b l ications and e vents, (6) f ailed to talk to Penick, Tanne r, or other members of

the prosec ution te a m, a nd (7 ) o mit te d a

nd juxta po se d f a c ts t o c re a te an o verall fal se impr e ssi on . We wi ll addre ss eac h in turn.
Failu re to tell readers that Travis Cou nty was n ot investigating Fi sher’s letter Penick claims that, by

not clar ifying in the December 13 article , which wa s headlined “F raud c harg es filed on DA in Re ed case ,” that the Travis County District Attorney ’s office had not opened a n “ac tive investigation,” the appellants published the article with actual malice . I n support of this argument, Penick relies on the fact that Mary Fa rring ton from the Public I nteg rity Unit of the Travis County

District Attorney ’s offic e had inf ormed the Smithville Times on November 14 or 15 that complaints simil ar to Fi s h er ’s were re ceive d fre quently and that, at that time, no ac tive investigation had been ope ned on the a lleg ations filed by Fisher ag ainst Penick. Penick asse rts that the truth of the De cembe r 13 ar ticle was g rossly distorted by the om ission of Far ring ton’s November statement that no ac tive investigation had been ope ned. We disag ree .20 A media de fenda

nt’s “omission of fac ts may be ac tionable if it so distorts t he [reader s’] pe rce ption that they rec eive a substantially false impression of the eve nt.” Huck abee , 19 S.W .3d at 425. For

a public figure to de monstrate that such an omiss ion constitutes actual malice , howeve r, he must pre sent evidenc e that the de fenda nt was aw are t hat the omission could cre ate a substantially

false impre ssion. Id . at 426 (plaintiff c ould satisfy test with evidence that defe ndant
se le c tiv e ly

omi tte d f a c ts t o p ur

po se fu lly c re a te fa lse po rt

ra y a l of ev e nts ). I f the omi ssi on of c e rt a in fac ts does not gr ossly

distort th e s tory , then the def endant’ s “fa ilure to ca

pture a ccur ately

all the story ’s details sug g ests [onl y ] an error in judgment, whic h is no evidence of ac tual malice.” Id
. Penick pre sented no e vidence that appellants we re or should have be en aw are that the omission of Fa

rring ton’s November comment from the Dec ember 13 article would cre ate a
su bs tanti a lly

fa lse imp re ssi on

of the re le va

nt e ve nts . Af

te r F arr ing ton sp ok e wi th t he ne ws pa

pe r i n November , Fisher

amende d his complai n t o n De cember 7, and the newspa per ne ver r ece ived an up d at ed re p ort from F arr ington a bout the status of the investig ation following Fisher ’s amende d filing. I n the Dec ember 13 article , appellants repor ted that Fisher had filed the alleg ations (both the
or ig ina l and

a me nd e d on e s) , wi tho ut d isc us sio n a s to wh e the r t he Pub lic I nte g ri ty

Un it w a s a c tiv e ly investigating them or not. Penick does not dispute the truth of the a rticle’s r eport that F isher “f iled a for mal complaint” cha

rg ing Penic k and other s with “conspira cy to commit fraud . . . in conne ction with the Rodney

Reed c ase,” and Penick a cknowledg es that, at the time of publication, these c harg es
we re s t i l l p en d i n g.

Mo re ov e r, F arr ing ton sw or e in he r de po sit ion that she inf or me d the ne ws pa

pe r o nly that “ we [do] not have an ope n inve sti g a tio n at this tim e and [] we re c e ive [] co mpl a int s a ll the tim eThe wor ding of Fa rring ton’s ph o n e ca l l i s n ot disputed. Both par ties rely upon 10 Fa rring ton’s rec ollection of her words in her

deposition. 21 from lots of differ ent people.” She did not tell the newspaper that the complaint was baseless or 10 frivolous, nor did s he say that an investig ation would never be opene d. I ndeed, in he r deposition Fa rring ton clarifie d that, “[the office ] re ceive s complaints from lots of differ ent people, a nd we take those complaints, and we, of cour se, re view them.” T hus, appellants could have re asonably inferr ed at the time of publication that Fisher’ s com p l ai nt was still in s ome pre liminary revie w stag e, espec ially taking into account that Fisher had rec ently amende d the complaint. The presumption that the investig ation was still open at some leve l was substantially true be cause Fa

rr i n gton did not consider the matter c losed until Dece mber 18 whe n she sent a le tter stating such to Fisher
.

The truth of the Dec ember 13 repor t (that Fisher had f

iled alleg ations ag ainst Penick) was not g rossly

distorted by appellants’ omission of the fac t that the pending complaint had not y et been actively investigated by the Tra vis County

Public I nteg rity

Unit. The omission of Far ring ton’s November

statement is not evidence of ac tual malice. See H uckabe e , 19 S.W .3d at 425-26.
Publication of dubious i nform ation from a biased source Ne xt, Pe nic k c la ims that a c tua l ma lic e is demo ns tr a te d b y the fa c t th a t a

pp e lla nts printed “dubious information” obtained from a “biase d source ”— i.e ., Fisher . Yet, Penick of fer s no
e vid e nc e to s uppo rt th is c la im. Ev ide nc e that a me dia de fe nd ant’ s “ re po rt

wa s mi sta

ke n, e ve n if neg lige ntly

so, is no evidence of ac tual malice” unless the p l ai n t i ff presents evide nce that the defe ndant purposef

ully published mistaken fac ts or that the circ umstances we re “ so improbable that only a re ckless publisher would ha ve made the mistake.” Can tu , 168 S
. W
. 3 d at 855. “An22

understanda

ble misinterpretation of ambig uous fac ts does not show actua l malice.” Id . As long as the article prese nts a “rational inter pretation” of the a ctual eve nts, the article sta nding a lone will not establish actua l malice. Id . at 857. L ikewise, a media def

endant’ s failure to fully

investigate does not constitute actual malice , althoug h its purposeful avoidanc e of the truth does. Skee n , 159 S.W .3d at 637. I n addition, evidence that an ar ticle was w ritten “fr om a particula r point of view, eve n when [t he ar ticle is] hard-hitting or se nsationalistic, is no evi d en ce of ac tual malice.” Huck abee , 19 S.W .3d at 425.

Pe nic k f a ils to p re se nt e vid e nc e that a pp e lla nts a c te d r e c kle ssl y

or purp os e fu lly
a vo ide d th e tr

uth in re lying on F ish e r a s a so ur c e . Pe nic k r e lie s p ri mari ly on a state me nt b y

Da vis McAuley , editor of

T h e B a s t r op Adve rtiser , that he believe d Fisher was untrustworthy . Even
assum in g th a t s o me one else reg arde d Fisher as an outlandish conspira cy theorist, evidenc e of a

nother pe rs on ’s op ini on , w ho ha s no conne c tio n to the ins tant ca se , is not e vid e nc e (1 ) t hat F ish e r w a s so untrustworthy

that it would be rec kless for any one to believe him or (2) that appellants we re a war e of F isher’s lac k of trustworthiness and c hose to ig nore it or pur posefully avoided the tr

uth. Thus , it is not e vidence of actua l ma lice on behalf of appellants. See St. Am ant v. Thompson , 390 U.S. 727, 73 3 ( 19 68 ) ( a lth ou g h d e fe nd ant r e po rt e d so me mis take n inf or ma tio n pr ov ide d by so ur c e , f a ilure to inv e sti g a te so ur c e ’s c re dib ili ty wa s n ot e vid e nc e of

re c kle ss p ub lic a ti o n ; r e c o r d f a i l e d t o de mon str a te

“ a low c omm un ity a sse ssm e nt o f [s ourc e ’s ] tr us tw or thi ne ss”); Bec k v. Lone Star Broad. Co. , 97 0 S
. W
. 2 d

6 1 0 , 6 1 7 ( T e x. Ap p . — T y l e r 1 9 9 8 , p e t
. d e n i e d ) ( “ f

a i l u r e o f a d e f e n d an tt o f

ull y investigate . . . the cr edibility of a sour ce doe s constitute actual malice ”).23 Simi larly , even a ssu ming the publications were a uthored fr om a har d-hitting conspirac y

theorist’s per spective , t h i s t o o provides no evide nce of actua l malice. See H

uckabe e , 19 S.W .3d a t 42 5; New Times, Inc. v. W amstad , 10 6 S .W.3d 916, 928 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied) (“r eporte r may rely on statements by

a single source , even though the y ref lect only one side of the story , without manif esting a re ckless disreg ard f or the truth”) . Evidence of F isher’s pr ior inv e sti g a tio ns int o o the r a lle g e d c on sp ir a c ie s is als o no t e vid e nc e that F ish e r p ro vid e d unr e lia ble information to appellants c oncer ning the Reed c ase or

that appellants we re a

wa re the information
was unre liable. Ther e is simply no evidenc e in t his recor d that would allow a r easona ble fa ct-finde r to conclude that, in using F isher as a source , appellants acted with actual malice , whether
c o n s c i o u s l y o r

r e c k l e s s l y. Finally , it is not di sputed that Tyler did not blindly rely on Fisher ’s investig ation. Acc ording to Ty ler’s and J ohnson’s deposition testimony , they conclude d that, based on the ir revie w of the trial e vidence , rea sonable doubt existed a bout Re ed’s g uilt. Fisher ’s deposition r efle cts that he fo rm e d th e same c on c lus ion fr om h is i nd e pe nd e nt i nv e sti g a tio n. Whil e Ty le r a nd John so n c ou ld have d o n e mo r e inv e s ti g a ti n g , th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e y “ p u r p o s e f u ll y a v o id e d th e tr

u th ” and no evidenc e that only

a rec kless publisher would have published the information they repor ted. See Skee n , 159 S.W .3d at 637 (re porter’ s five mont hs of resear ch, including i nterview s and re ading court
rec ords, coupled w ith absence of sourc e that could have ea sily d i sproved state ments showed no purposef u l av o i d ance of the truth to constitute ac tual malice in re porter’ s criticisms of district
a tto rn e y ’s of

fi c e ); s e e als o Ca ntu , 168 S.W .3d at 855.Se e su pra footnote 5. 11 24 Fai lure to d isc los ere lat

ion ship be twe e n the

Sm it hvi lle Tim e s and Fi sher I n support of his c laim of actua l ma lice, Penick a rg ues that the Sm ith v ill e Times hid the fa ct that Tyler a sked F isher to investig ate the c ase i n order to use Fisher ’s independe nt
a sse ssm e nt a s c orr ob oration f or Tyle r’ s o wn

the or ie s. This argument is without m erit for two
rea sons. First, Penick has f ailed to demo n s trate that appellants “hid” this relationship from the
rea ders. To the contra

ry , the newspa

per published Fisher ’s Aug ust 23 letter to the editor stating that he had be en aske d by

a re porter to investig ate the Re ed ca se. Second, eve n taking as true Penic k’s 11 claim that appe llants “hid” the fac t that Fisher aided in the investig ation, this is no evidence of actua l malice be cause journalists are not required to reve al every source of information upon which they have r elied. Turner v. KTRK T elev ision, Inc. , 38 S.W. 3d 10 3, 12 3 ( Te x. 20 00 ). B e c a us e a pp e lla nts ’ use of F isher as a

source was not re ckless, re gar d less of whe ther this relationship was reve aled or ke pt c on fi de nti a l, i t do e s n ot d e mon str a te that th e art ic le s we re pu bli sh e d with kn ow le dg e of fa lsi ty
or a r eckle ss disreg ard f

or the truth. These fac t s ar e ak in to the ones found in Turner
. Id . There , the media de fenda nt failed to reve al t hat one of i ts sources f or a ne ws story , which implicated a may oral c andidate in a possible insurance fra

ud scanda l, was a me mber of the opposing c ampaig n. There was e vidence that the def endant kne w of the sour ce’ s aff iliation. Id. Howeve r, the court ruled t h at t h e d efendant’s failure to reve al its source was not clea r and convincing evidenc e of actual malice beca use (1) the plaintiff fa iled to produce suffic i ent evidenc e that the media defe ndant intended to endor se the opposing c andidate, a

nd (2) the de fenda

nt may have be lieved in the truth of the story
. Id. S i m i l ar l y,We r e c og nize tha t Tur ne r involved a clea

r and convincing standard that is higher than the 12 level of e vidence require d in the case at hand, but we find the ana ly sis persuasive. 25 Penick ’s claim t hat appe llants “hid” the fa ct that Fishe r wa s a sourc e provide s no evidenc e that appellants ha d serious conc erns a bout the vera city

of the publication. 12
Om ission of complim entary statem ents about Penick Penick ar g ues t hat actual malice is demonstrated by the fa ct that, on September 13, 2001, when the Smithville Times reported that Bryan Goe rtz had announce d h i s ca n d i dacy for Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey , ap p el l an t s fa i l edt o i n cl u d e co mp l i m en t ary s t at em en t s m ad e i n Go er t z ’s ca mp ai gn
announce ment about Penick. We disag ree .

The Septembe r 13 story is sol ely

about Goer

tz’s candidacy : his backg round, qualifications, and rea sons for seeking office
. The only mention of P enick in the article is that “[t] he position i s curr ently

being held by

veter an prose cutor Char les Penick, who pre viously announce d that afte r 25 y ear s i n office , he will not be see king r e-e lection.” Penick doe s not alleg e that any information in this statement is false and/or that it wa s damag ing to his char acte r or re putation. The
ne ws pa pe r h a d d isc re tio n to e dit

its sto ry to c ov e r o nly

the re le va

nt f a c ts a bo ut t he c ur re nt c and idate and to omit the candidate ’s favorable statements about the incumbe nt. Such an omission by appellants provide s no evidenc e of actua l ma lice toward Penick. See Turner , 38 S.W .3d at 122-23 (Tex. 2000) (journa list entitled to e dit story as nece ssary , and omission of favor able comments about plaintiff, when r emainder of re port is not o t h er wi s e fa lse, is not evidence of ac tual malice) ; HBO v. Harrison , 983 S.W .2d 31, 42 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1998 , n o p et.) (quoting26

Mi am i H e ra ld P ub l’

g Co . v . To rn ill o , 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974)) (editorial choice t o ex clude favor able c omments about public fig ure in other wise truthful re port is not actual malice ). Moreove r, appe llants had previously published favor able state ments about Penick. On Aug ust 16, J ohnson authore d a repor t a bout Penic k’s decision to not seek re- elec ti o n , wh i ch included Penick’ s quote that, “I have enjoy ed the 24 y ear s Ihave spe nt repre senting the people of B a str op County ; ho we ve r, it i s no w tim e to mov e on to n e w e nd e a vo rs . I

a m pr ou d o f t

he wo rk my profe ssional staff ha s acc omplished. I want to tha nk all of the voter s and fr iends that have supported me in past elec tions and wish only the best to my

succe ssor.” A news or g anization cannot be r equire d to print or air the vie wpoint of eve ry one who might speak on a public fig ure’ s behalf. Turner , 38 S.W .3d at 122. Also, there is no evidence that the om i s s i o n o f t hese f

avora ble statements g rossly

distorted the ar

ticles at issue or c reated a substantially

false impre ssion of Penick. See H uckabe e , 19 S.W .3d at 425-26 (be cause omission of fac ts that more clea

rly explained pla intiff’s judicial decisions did not g rossly distort story , it was not evidenc e of a ctual malice ). He nce, a ppellants’ o m ission of Goertz’s favor able state ments about Penick provides no e vidence of ac tual malice. Se e Can tu , 168 S.W .3d at 858.
Pre dic tio n of

fu ture pub lic ations and

e v e nts Penick’s fifth a

rg ument fo r actua l malice is based on his c laim that the Sm ith v ill e Times had predeter

mined to publish the December 13 article headlined “Fr aud charg es filed on DA”
art ic le , r e g ard le ss of wh e the r the sto ry tur ne d ou t to be tr

ue or fa lse , be c a

us e Ty le r h a d p re vio us ly stated in an Oc tober 18 editorial that the Attorney Gene ral’s of

fice had launc hed an inve stigation. L ike Penick’s f

irst actual malice argument, this claim hinge s on whether t h e alleg ations filed by27

F ish er were bei ng“ a c tiv e ly inv e sti g a te d. ” I n o the r w or ds , Pe nic k a sse rt s th a t a c tua l ma lic e is demonstrated beca

use Ty ler repor

ted that an investigation ha d been launche d befor e ac tually finding out whether

Fisher ’s alleg ations of fra ud would be investig ated. Pe nic k c ite s Harte-Hank s Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton a s supp or t. 491 U.S. 657, 684 (1989)
. I n Harte-Hank s , a new spaper

editorial pre dicted the discove ry of information damag ing the integ rity of ca ndidates for municipal judge befor e publishing a lleg ations
a b o u t o n e o f th e c an d id a te s a f e w d ay s la ter. Id

. Subsequent interviews a ll contradicte d the alleg ations, y et the new spaper chose to publish the allegat i o n s as predicted. Id. at 683. The United States Supreme Court held that this demonstrate d a re ckless dis re gar d fo r the truth. Id. at 684. Penick ar g ues that, like the de fenda nts in Harte-Hank

s , appellants a cted with ac tual malice by publishing the De cembe r 13 article base d on a pre deter mined decision re g ardle ss of the ar ticle’s truth. Ho we ve r, Pe nic k cann ot sho w that th e pr ima ry c on te nts of

the De c e mbe r 1 3 a

rt ic le
wer e false. Other than the three misstated e rror s, which wer e minor and wer e corr ecte d by Fisher ’s Dec ember

20 letter to the editor, the December 13 article acc urate ly repor ted that the alleg ations had b ee n f i l edb y Fi s h er an d we re p en d i n g. Thus, this provides no evidenc e of a ctual malice
. See Gr otti , 1 8 8 S. W. 3 d a t 7 7 5 ( “ to p r o v e s u b s ta n ti a l tr u th , th e d e f

e n d an ts n e e d o n ly p r o v e th a t the third party

alleg ations were in fac t made and a ccur ately repor ted and that the a lleg ations were under inve stigation”).28

Fai lure to t alk to P e nic k, Ta nne r, or

oth e r p ro se c uto ria l membe rs Penick argues that the Smithville Times and Ty le r ac te d w itha c tua l ma lic e be c a us e they intentionally

avoided the tr

uth by failing to inter

view Penick and others on the prosec ution side of the Ree d case . Although the failure of a ne wspape r to fully investigate alleg ations befor e pu bli sh ingthe m w ill no t a lon e su pp or t a find ing of a c tua l mali c e , pur po se fu l avo ida

nc e of the tr

uth will. Harte-Hank

s , 491 U.S. at 692. Evidence of a me dia def endant’ s knowledg e that a public f igur e plaintiff has de nied har

mful alleg ations or offe red a n alternative explanation of events is not evidenc e that the de fenda nt doubted the alleg ations for purposes of establishing actua l malice, beca use “[i] n the world of politics, ‘such denials are so commonplace [t hat]
. . . they hardly aler t the conscie ntious re porter to the likelihood of err or.’” Can tu , 168 S.W. 3d a t 85 8; see also Harte-

Hanks , 49 1 U .S. a t 69 2 n .3 7; Skee n , 1 58 S.W. 3d a t 63 9; Hucak

bee , 19 S. W
. 3 d at 427. Als o, a new s
o rga n i z at ion is not required to publish the interviews o f e v e r y o n e w h o m i g h ts p e a k

o na p u bli c fig ure’ s behalf. See Turner , 38 S.W.3 d at 122
. Whil e a me dia de fe nd ant m ay purp os e fu lly

a vo id the tr uth by fa ili ngto i nv e sti g a te ob vio us ly c ru c ia l and

re lia ble sourc es of in formatio n, the law i s clea r that the public figures themse lves nee d not be interview ed due to the ir persona l bias and the likelihood of a denial. See H arte-Hank

s , 4 91 U. S. at 69 2 n .3 7; Can tu , 1 68 S.W. 3d a t 85 8; Skee n , 15 8 S. W.3 d at 63 9; Huck abee , 19 S.W .3d at 427. As su pp or t f or his po sit ion , Pe nic k c ite s Bentl ey v. Bunton, 94 S.W .3d at 602. In Bentley , the cour

t ruled that the de fenda

nt had display ed ac tual malice by hounding a

public fig ure rele ntlessly

for m o nth s w ith r

uthless corruption ac cusations on television, while private ly expressing do ub ts a bo ut t he c ha rg e s, and by “ de lib e rate ly ig no r[i ng ] p e op le wh o c ou ld h a ve ans we re d a ll h is29

questions.” Id. The instant ca se is distinguishable, howe ver, be cause the def endant in Bentley

went bey ond the mere failure to c onsult with the plaintiff or investig ate other source s; he broadc ast sever e
acc usations about which he h ad p ri v at ely expressed ser ious doubt. Id. Thus, in Bentley , the defe ndant’s ac tions fell squarely within the definiti on of “reckle ss disreg ard” beca use the de fenda

nt had ex presse d doubt for the ve rac ity of his defa

matory claims and ha d ignor ed obvious and unbiase d
source s of information as a means of pur

posefully avoiding the truth. Id. at 590, 602. I n the ca se at ha

nd , Ty ler e x presse d no such doubt about the ve rac ity of her
acc usations. Ty ler intervie wed de fense attorney s and i nvestig ators to determine what pra ctices or pr oc e dure s in

the Re e d c a se we re inc on sis te nt wi th a pr op e r inv e sti g a tio n. She re se arc he d th e pu bli c
rec ord on the Ree d case . She viewed c rime sce ne re ports, pictures, a nd videotapes r efle cting the views of the la

w enf orce ment office rs involved in the orig inal investigation. She read the trial and hear ing tr anscr ipts displ aying the arguments and theorie s of the prosec ution. Althoug h Ty ler did not seek the comments of those she a ccuse d of prosec uting a flawe d case ag ainst an innoce nt man, she was not re quired to do so. See El Paso Times v. Trexler , 447 S.W .2d 403, 406 (Tex. 1969) (eve n

“ [ne g lig e nc e ] or

fa ilure to ac t as a re a so na

bly pr ud e nt man [in inv e sti g a tin g a sto ry ] is [] in su ff ic ie nt” to es ta bli sha c tua l ma lic e ); Cloud v. McKinney , No. 03-04-00656- CV, 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 7658, at *28-29) ( Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 30, 2006, no pe t.) (opinion) (Spokeswoma n’s fa ilure “to c heck [facts] with McKinney or C loud prior to making the statements does not mea n that [spokeswoman] made the statement knowi n g t hat it was fa lse or with re ckless disreg ard a s to the truth or the statement.”) . The fa ct that Tyler ha d done enoug h rese arc h to have a reasonable be lief in her30

viewpoint is sufficient to disprove a rec kless disreg ard for the truth. Trexler , 4 47 S.W. 3d a t 40 6; see also Fort W

orth Star-Tele. v. Street , 61 S.W .3d 704, 713 (Tex. A pp.—For t Worth 2001, pet. de nied). Ty ler’s a ctions are also u n l i k e t he def endant’ s actions in Harte-Hank s , which the Supreme Court deeme d to involve actua l malice. See 491 U.S. at 692. There , the Court held that the de fe nd ant pur

po se fu lly a vo ide d the tr

uth by pu bli sh inga c c us a tio ns a g a ins t a may or a l c and idate when the de fenda

nt was aw are of tape -re cording s by other witnesse s that clea rl y s h o we d the
acc usations to be false. The Court held that the def endant’ s choice to ignor e the tape s was likely “a pr od uc t of a de lib e rate de c isi on no t to a c qu ir e kn ow le dg e of fa c ts that mi g ht c on fi rm

the pr ob a ble f a ls it y o f [th e g r a n d ju r o r ’ s ] c h ar g es.” Id . Penick pre sented no e vidence that Tyler ha d rec eived signific ant information contr ary to her theor ies or that there was some c lear way she may have
ve ri fi e d th e tr

uth of he r c la ims
. Pe nic k p ro du c e d n o e vid e nc e sh ow ing that Ty le r do ub te d the ve ra c ity of he r c la ims , as did the def

endant in Bentley , 94 S.W .3d at 590, 602, or t hat Ty ler purpose fully avoided the tr

uth, as did the def

endant in Harte-Hank

s , 491 U.S. at 692. Thus, Tyler’s f ailure to intervie w Penick and other prose cutors is not evidenc e of a ctual malice
. Modification of facts to create a f alse im pression I n his f inal actua l ma lice argument, Penick alleg es that the “ g ist” of the def amatory article s as a whole convey ed a false impression to the rea ders, which he argues was “so g laring as to serve a s proof of ma lice.” See Turner , 3 8 S. W.3 d at 11 6; see also Huc kabee , 19 S.W .3d at 426. As support, Penick lists severa l fa ct s t h at he c laims were either imprope rly omitted from or juxta po se d w ith in a

pp e lla nts ’ p ub lic a tio ns . How e ve r, wh e the r o r n ot t he “ g ist ” of

the art ic le s c ou ld31

be pr ov e n to be fa lse , a c tua l ma lice r e qu ir e s e vid e nc e that a pp e lla nts kn e w o f o r r e c kle ssl y disreg arde d the fa lse impression cre ated by the ar ticles. See H

uckabe e , 19 S.W .3d at 426. Pe nic k c ite s Hu c k

ab e e v . Ti meW

ar ne r E nte rta inm e nt as support for the i d ea that “g laring ” fa l s eh o o ds are stand-alone evidenc e of a ctual malice
. Id. Huck abee pr ov ide d a

sin g le example of a c ase w here the omission of facts may be stand-a lone evidenc e of a ctual malice
. Id. at 4 2 6 (c i t i n g SchiavoneConstr. Co. v. Time, Inc

. , 847 F.2d 1069, 1092 (3rd Cir. 1988)) . I n Schiavone , the Third Circuit ruled that a newspa per’ s omission of exculpatory statements from a

story repor ting about an F BI

memorandum that linked the pl ai n t i ff to the disappea ranc e of Jimm y

Hoffa was evidenc e of act ual malice be cause four unbiase d FB Isource s corr oborate d the statements to the newspa p er befor e publication, and the omission s o chang ed the c hara cter of the story

that the defe ndant likely

knew or suspected that it would convey a fa lse impress i o n . Sc hia v on e Con str
. , 847 F.2d at 1092

.

Although the court in Huck abee acknow ledg ed that in some ca ses an omission of fac t could be proof of actua l malice, it did not g o so far as to say that all omissions of fa ct would serve as evide nce of

actua l malice. Huck

abee , 19 S.W .3d at 426. I n fac t, the court in Huck abee held that the def endant’ s omission of fac ts, w hich would have made the plaintiff’s judicial de cisions appea r less arb i t ra ry , was not evide nce of actua l malice without additional evidenc e that the de fenda nt omitted the fac ts with knowledg e that it may convey a substantially

false impre ssion. Id. Huck abee
se t th e ba r hig h to pr ote c t a me dia de fe nd ant’ s c ho ic e of wh a t mate ri a l to inc lud e in i ts b ro a dc a sts
. “Althoug h the fa cts omitted mig ht or might not have led a r easona ble viewe r to suspend judg ment
or e ve n to re a c h a

n o pp os it e co nc lus ion

re g ard ing[the pla int if

f], the ir omi ssi on did no t g ro ssl y d is to rt th e s to r

y ” a n d , th u s , w a s n o t s ta

n d

- a lo n e p r o o f o f a c tu a l ma lice. Id. Her e, ther e is no32

e vid e nc e that a

pp e lla nts kn e w o r s ho uld

have kn ow n th a t th e ir

c ho ic e of

pu bli sh e d f a c ts w ou ld convey a substantially false impression or g rossly distort the truth of the story to a re asonable rea der. I n his s ev en ar gu ments, Penick fails as a matter of la

w to raise a

g enuine issue of materia l fac t reg arding

actua l malice.
CO NC LU SION The district cour

t erre d by denying the appellants’ motion fo r summary judgme nt reg ardingthe Octobe r 18 ar ticle bec ause the article was not “of and conc ern i ng ” Penick. Fur thermore , t h e d i s t ri ct cour t erre d by denying the appellants’ motion re g ardingthe Octobe r 18, Dec ember

13 and 20, and January

3 article s beca

use P enick failed to prese nt a scintilla of evidenc e to demonstrate that a

ny of these a

rticles wa s published with actual malice
. Acc ording ly , we r ever se the portion of t he dis trict court’s order that denied summary jud g me nt fo r the a

pp e lla nts re g ard ing the se fo ur a

rt ic le s, and we re nd e r a

take -n oth ingjud g me nt i n fa vo r o f a pp e lla nts on Pe nic k’ s c la ims re la te d to the se fo ur art ic le s.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Reverse d and Rende red Filed: F ebrua

ry 13, 2007