Opinion ID: 526161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Public concern analysis.

Text: 12 Speech on a matter of public concern is speech which can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. at 1688. Under Connick, [w]hether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. Id. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. at 1690 (footnote omitted). See also Koch v. City of Hutchinson, 847 F.2d at 1436 (listing factors courts have considered in public concern analysis). 13 Our examination of the record in light of these factors convinces us that Mr. Melton's speech to defense counsel and at trial touched upon a matter of public concern. Mr. Melton's speech clearly related to political, social, or other concerns of the community. However, in determining whether speech is on a matter of public concern, it is not always enough that 'its subject matter could in [certain] circumstances, [be] the topic of a communication to the public that might be of general interest.' [Connick, 461 U.S. at 148] n. 8 [103 S.Ct. at 1691 n. 8] (emphasis added). What is actually said on that topic must itself be of public concern. Wilson v. City of Littleton, Colo., 732 F.2d 765, 769 (10th Cir.1984). 14 Mr. Page was a public official under investigation and prosecution for malfeasance in his public duties. 8 Of course the public would want, and is arguably entitled to, information relating to a public official's guilt or innocence in a public trial which relates to his public duties. Additionally, Mr. Melton's speech was calculated to disclose wrongdoing or inefficiency or other malfeasance on the part of government officials in the conduct of their official duties, Koch, 847 F.2d at 1445, by revealing what he believed to be exculpatory Brady material to Mr. Page's defense counsel and the court--information which might otherwise have been suppressed by the federal prosecutor. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1690 (Nor did [the plaintiff] seek to bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of [the employer]). We conclude that Mr. Melton's speech to Mr. Page's defense counsel and at Mr. Page's trial dealt with a matter of public concern within the meaning of Pickering and its progeny. 15