Opinion ID: 1889683
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Truth May Set Him Free; Falsehoods May Get Him Jail

Text: There can be no doubt that the First Amendment protects truthful statements made in judicial proceedings. It is essential, therefore, to prove that the lawyer's statements were false and that he either knew the statements were false or that he acted with reckless disregard of whether these statements were true or false. In this case, there was no mental state ( mens rea ) requirement in the jury instruction. [18] The instruction did not require the jury to find that Smith knew his statements were false or that Smith showed reckless disregard for the truth. The only contested issue the instruction asked the jury to find was whether Smith's written statements to the court of appeals degraded and made impotent the authority of the Circuit Court of Douglas County, Associate Circuit Division and impeded and embarrassed the administration of justice. Although this language is present in the scant case law available  as a sole basis for a finding of criminal contempt and the resulting order of commitment to incarceration  it does not comport with the constitutional protections of free speech in United States Supreme Court precedents. Under this instruction, the assistant attorney general prosecuting the case was able to argue, in effect, that it did not matter whether Smith's statements about Judge Carter were true or false or whether Smith thought they were true or false. The attorney told the jury that if Smith thought Judge Carter was a crook, the legal thing to do is to file a complaint with the disciplinary authorities. ... [Y]ou can't call the judge a crook. I ask you to read these instructions carefully and ask you to find Carl Smith guilty for contempt of court. Even in disciplinary cases, this Court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized that lawyers have First Amendment rights. A lawyer's duty to the client requires that the lawyer represent the client zealously within the bounds of the law. Rule 4, Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities; Sprung v. Negwer Materials, Inc., 727 S.W.2d 883, 893 (Mo. banc 1987) (Rendlen, J., concurring). [19] Before a lawyer can be found guilty of criminal contempt for what is written in his or her pleadings, there must be some finding that the lawyer's statements were made with actual knowledge of their falsity or that the statements were in fact false and were made with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false. The only witness in this case was Judge Carter, the complainant. He testified that Smith's written statements were false. But the jury was not asked to find that Smith's statements were false, that Smith knew they were false or that he made the statements with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false. There simply was no evidence from which the jurors could find the requisite state of Smith's mind regarding the falsity of the statements, nor were they asked to do so. [20]