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

Heading: Retirement Article

Text: Finally, Judge Kendall argues that the Daily News’s article regarding his retirement is defamatory because the subtitle stated that there were “[t]hree 34 judicial conduct complaints against him still pending.”6 This statement is false, he contends, because the complaints had been dismissed by the District Court of the Virgin Islands (though the District Court’s ruling was still pending on appeal).7 This is an ordinary defamatory statement, so to establish actual malice, Judge Kendall must show that the statement was made 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). 6 The defendants contend that this argument is not within our grant of certiorari for “whether the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s review exceeded the scope of the ‘independent examination’ required in Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 499 (1984).” Judge Kendall’s argument is within the scope of our grant of certiorari because he contends that the Virgin Islands Supreme Court should have deferred to the jury with regard to the testimony of the subtitle’s author, J. Lowe Davis, which Judge Kendall believes was adequate to establish actual malice. 7 We assume that the alleged defamatory statement is false because our writ of certiorari is limited to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s application of independent appellate review to its actual-malice analysis. 35 Judge Kendall argues that the evidence is sufficient in light of the credibility determination that the jury supposedly made regarding the testimony of the subtitle’s author. The author testified that “[a]t the time [she] wrote the headline of the aforementioned article, [she] believe[d] that it was entirely accurate and did not state or imply any fact that [she] knew to be false or about which [she] entertained any serious doubt.” Judge Kendall argues that the jury’s finding of actual malice means that the jury disbelieved the author’s testimony and that the article itself did not state that the complaints were still pending. The jury likely made these conclusions, but we defer only to the jury’s finding that the author’s testimony was incredible. See Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 690. We do not defer to the jury’s possible conclusion that the article did not support the subtitle because that conclusion requires an inference from the text of the article, which we are free to review independently. See id. at 688–89. In light of the jury’s credibility determination and our review of the remaining evidence, actual malice cannot be established by clear-and-convincing evidence. The jury’s disbelief of the statement’s author is not sufficient because a plaintiff must show more than mere disbelief to establish actual malice. Bose, 466 U.S. at 512 (“When 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 36 a contrary conclusion.”). Nothing in the record demonstrates that the defendants knew their statement was false or were reckless in regard to its falsity. The Daily News’s description of the complaints in the body of the article itself illustrates that it believed they were still pending. The article describes the complaints in the present tense—“the complaints against Kendall include”—and it accurately reports that Judge Kendall’s victory in the District Court was on appeal, suggesting that a final determination of the complaints’ fate had not been reached. 8 The absence of any evidence that the 8 The relevant portion of the article states: Since May 2007, The Daily News has reported on three separate complaints made to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities against Kendall. These complaints either asked for an investigation into the judge’s pattern of conduct from the bench or for his removal. The complaints against Kendall include: [Description of the complaints brought separately by Judicial Watch, the Women’s Coalition of St. Croix, and a St. Thomas businesswoman.] In October 2007, Kendall filed a lawsuit in District Court asking the court to stop the commission from conducting any hearings 37 Daily News thought its description of the complaints as “pending” was or could be false means that there is not clear-and-convincing evidence to support a finding of actual malice.