Opinion ID: 431713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged systematic leaks of information to media.

Text: 29 1. Injury to reputation. It is axiomatic that violations of state law alone are insufficient to state a claim for section 1983 relief. See, e.g., Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). To the extent that appellant claims injury to his reputation resulting from the alleged grand jury leaks, appellees argue that Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), precludes recovery. Cf. Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 97 S.Ct. 882, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977) (no hearing required to allow appellant to clear his name from published charges of a stigmatizing nature when no allegation made that charges are false). We agree that the rule of Paul (subject to the Codd exception in the case of a protected property interest) is that injury caused by stigmatizing information furnished by a governmental agency is not as such cognizable under the due process clause, at least when there is no allegation that the information is false. Because Powers' complaint nowhere alleges that the leaked information was false, his allegations of injury to reputation do not state a claim. 30 2. Deprivation of fair trial. Powers' complaint also alleges that the systematic leaks by the prosecutors to the press deprived him of a fair trial. As noted above, this claim was clearly not mooted, and we hold that Powers is entitled to the opportunity to show that his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated by the alleged leaks. 31 We wish to emphasize, however, that our holding in no way diminishes the burden that the plaintiff must meet in order to prove his allegations. In the first place there must be a showing that (A) in the pre-arrest or information stage there were extrajudicial statements for public communication going beyond the public record and unnecessary to inform the public that investigation was under way or going beyond a mere description of the general scope of the investigation or (B) in the post-arrest or information stage such statements relating to (1) the prior criminal record or character or reputation of Powers, (2) the existence and content of any admission or statement of Powers or the refusal or failure of Powers to make any statement, (3) the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses, (4) the guilt or innocence of Powers or other matters relating to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case, or (5) other matter improper within the canons of ethics and standards relating to prosecutorial functions and fair trial/free press. In other words, there must be improper leaks. 32 Second, Powers' claim that he was denied a fair trial requires more than the mere speculation of damages ...[;] it requires a showing that plaintiff [has] in fact been denied [his] due process rights. Martin v. Merola, 532 F.2d at 194 (emphasis added). Although the guilty plea did not moot Powers' claim, it may well have made his task of proving it more difficult. It is for counsel, however, and not for us, to determine how to prove the elements of the claim. 33 Moreover, the showing that must be made involves more than a showing that there were improper leaks and that there was deprivation of a fair trial. While there need not be a showing that the defendant(s) herein knew that the leaks would tend to cause such a deprivation or intentionally gave them to the media, Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 534-35, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1912-13, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), there must be a showing that other remedies were not available, or were used to no avail, to alleviate the effects of the leaks, e.g., a thorough voir dire, utilization of challenges both peremptory and for cause, a motion to disqualify a biased judge (we do not suggest that there was such in this case), a motion to change venue, or the like. In other words, there must be a showing of causation; if Powers was deprived of a fair trial he has to show that such deprivation was not too remote a consequence of the improper leaks to the press. See Martinez v. California, 44 U.S. 277, 279, 285, 100 S.Ct. 553, 556, 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980). And anything we have said, of course, does not foreclose, on appropriate papers, summary judgment. 34