Opinion ID: 768725
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assertions

Text: 25 Unlike omissions, assertions can be made with reckless disregard for the truth even if they involve minor details-recklessness is measured not by the relevance of the information, but the demonstration of willingness to affirmatively distort truth. In applying the reckless disregard test to assertions, we have borrowed from the free speech arena and equated reckless disregard for the truth with a high degree of awareness of [the statements'] probable falsity. Lippay v. Christos, 996 F.2d 1490, 1501 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana , 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964)); see also United States v. Clapp, 46 F.3d 795, 800 (8th Cir. 1995) (reckless disregard for the truth is exhibited when expressing that which was not believed or appropriately accepted as true). An assertion is made with reckless disregard when viewing all the evidence, the affiant must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his statements or had obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of the information he reported. Clapp, 46 F.3d at 801 n.6. 26 Applying these tests to this case, Russo had reasons to doubt the accuracy of his intimation that he had personally investigated the entire case and interviewed the witnesses after the robbery. More importantly, a jury could conclude that Russo must have entertained serious doubts about the truth of his statement that the dental worker had seen Wilson around 3:00, instead of around 3:30. Because he told the judge about DaVila's identification, Russo must have learned of DaVila's statement from somewhere; a jury could infer that he learned of it from the transcript of DaVila's statement or a complete report, either of which would include her statement that she saw Wilson about a half an hour before the police arrived, which would place her sighting at about 3:30. If Russo knew of the time difference, he had obvious reasons to doubt his assertion to the judge that a witness saw Wilson around 3:00. 27 As to the other information from the other officers' reports, Wilson did not adduce any evidence that Russo would have examined these reports as a matter of course or policy, or any evidence from which a jury could infer knowledge of their content. Moreover, there is no evidence that Russo knew that the array was developed from Wilson's photo alone. Therefore, a jury could not conclude that his representation that the array was made as a result of the physical descriptions was made with reckless disregard of the truth. 5