Opinion ID: 854683
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Castillo Articles

Text: Judge Kendall argues that the defendants’ articles relating to his bail decision in Daniel Castillo’s case are 24 defamatory because they implied that he knew of Castillo’s history of violence when he released Castillo on his own recognizance. The defendants’ articles contained the statement (or statements similar to): “Kendall found probable cause to charge Castillo but released him pending trial—despite Castillo’s history of violence including charges of rape, assault and weapons violations.” Although this statement does not explicitly say that Judge Kendall released Castillo despite knowing of his history of violence, Judge Kendall contends that this is the implication the defendants intended readers to understand. As we have explained, to show actual malice for defamation by implication, Judge Kendall must show by clear-and-convincing evidence both (1) that the defendants either intended the defamatory meaning or knew of the defamatory meaning and were reckless in regard to it, and (2) that the defendants made the statement with “knowledge that [the] statement was false or [with] reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” Schiavone Constr. Co., 847 F.2d at 1089 (quoting Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 280) (quotation marks omitted). Judge Kendall first argues that we must disregard the testimony of Blackburn, who authored the articles, because the jury must have found her testimony incredible. See Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 690. We agree. Blackburn testified that when she wrote the statement, she intended a nondefamatory meaning that “Mr. Castillo had a history of violence and Judge Kendall did choose 25 to release him.” The jury must have concluded that this testimony was incredible because to decide otherwise— that Blackburn did not intend the defamatory meaning— would have prevented them from finding actual malice, as they did. We thus cannot consider Blackburn’s testimony about the meaning of her statement. The jury’s rejection of her testimony does not end our analysis, however. Mere disbelief of a defendant’s statement ordinarily is insufficient to establish malice. Bose, 466 U.S. at 512 (“When the testimony of a witness is not believed, the trier of fact may simply disregard it. Normally the discredited testimony is not considered a sufficient basis for drawing a contrary conclusion.”). Judge Kendall argues that the communicative-intent element of actual malice is satisfied through Blackburn’s coverage of protests that followed Castillo’s murder of a 12-year-old girl. Judge Kendall contends that even if the defendants were initially unaware that their statement could imply that he was aware of Castillo’s history of violence when he released him on his own recognizance, they were made aware through the protests organized by people who, as Blackburn acknowledged at trial, “understood that Judge Kendall had released Mr. Castillo despite his history of violence.” Once the defendants were aware of what the public understood their statement to mean, he argues, their continued publication of the statement was at least reckless. 26 This evidence is insufficient to satisfy the communicative-intent element by clear-and-convincing evidence in light of the subjective nature of the actualmalice inquiry. Schiavone Constr. Co., 847 F.2d at 1089 (quoting St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731). The subjective nature of this inquiry requires that there be some evidence showing, directly or circumstantially, that the defendants themselves understood the potential defamatory meaning of their statement. Id. (quoting St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731). No direct evidence in the record of this case suggests that the defendants themselves knew of, much less intended, the defamatory meaning. There is also no circumstantial evidence of record linking the protestors’ understanding of what took place with the statement made by the defendants. The protestors’ testimony did not establish that the Daily News was their source. The protesters could not recall at trial whether their source was the statements by the Daily News or coverage from other Virgin Islands news outlets. If the Daily News’s reporting had been the sole source of information for Castillo’s case, then Judge Kendall would have a stronger basis for inferring the defendants’ knowledge of and recklessness with regard to the defamatory meaning of the statement. But here, the story was covered by several news outlets, which makes it impossible to know whether the protests were caused or informed by the defendants’ statements. Consequently, we cannot conclude with “clear conviction” and “without 27 hesitation” that the defendants were made aware of the defamatory meaning of their statement through their coverage of the protests. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d at 179 (explaining what satisfies the clear-and- convincing standard). Because Judge Kendall cannot establish that the defendants intended the defamatory meaning or knew of it and were reckless in regard to it, he fails to prove actual malice by clear-and-convincing evidence.4