Opinion ID: 2025227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Directed Verdict for Carl Young

Text: The United States Supreme Court has held that a ruling on a motion for a directed verdict or summary judgment necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits. ( Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986), 477 U.S. 242, 252, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 214, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512.) While Anderson was applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, its observation was equally applicable to actions in State court. With respect to libel claims brought by public officials relating to their official conduct, the first amendment mandates a `clear and convincing' standard, [and] the trial judge in disposing of a directed verdict motion should consider whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude, for example, that the plaintiff had shown actual malice with convincing clarity. 477 U.S. at 252, 91 L.Ed.2d at 214, 106 S.Ct. at 2512. Plaintiff fell far short of establishing with convincing clarity that Carl Young's role in publishing any articles at issue involved actual malice. His role in one of the December 21, 1978, articles (the article containing no by-line) was peripheral at most. His testimony indicates that he was asked to call and obtain statements from one or more officers mentioned in the report. He remembers calling only one officer. He does not recollect calling Officer Reed, and there is no testimony in the record that he did so. (Reed does not remember who from CN called him.) Carl Young remembers typing his notes of these conversations and believes that he gave the notes to Les Smith. Carl Young does not know whether Les Smith actually wrote the article. Although Carl Young had by this point glanced at the grand jury report mentioning Reed, there is no indication that he had studied the report at any length. Rather, a fair reading of his testimony indicates that he was busy that day preparing his scanner (police beat) report, was asked to call one or more officers, hurriedly did so and made notes of his conversations, and then returned to his other duties. If the burden of proof in this case were less than it is, then plaintiff would perhaps have a better argument that the motion for a directed verdict should have been denied. However, after reading the record, we, like the circuit court, fail to see how a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff had established with clear and convincing evidence that on December 21, 1978, Carl Young wrote that Reed was implicated in the report. There is even less evidence that Young made such a statement while actually entertaining serious doubts as to the truth of the assertion. The second article about which Carl Young's involvement was questioned appeared on March 6, 1979. That article contains the following language: A seven page summary of the usually secret grand jury testimony was released to the public, and it named three current officers and one sheriff's deputy as participants in at least one of the 1970-71 break-ins. Although Carl Young stated that he probably read the grand jury report between the time that the December articles were published and the time that this article was published, he stated that he based the above-quoted statement on previous stories  stories which he had little, if any, role in writing. Considering testimony that Young relied on previous stories, and considering that the report itself is extremely murky in its discussion of numerous officers, including Michael Reed (so that unless one scrutinizes the report one could very well conclude that Reed had been implicated), we agree with the circuit court that a jury could not reasonably find clear and convincing evidence that Carl Young had a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of his articles. Insufficiency of evidence with regard to malice of Carl Young is equally applicable to the other articles about which he was questioned; there simply is insufficient evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to rise to the level of clear and convincing proof.