Opinion ID: 389255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiff was a Public Figure During the Scottsboro Trials

Text: 30 Since common law defenses do not support the directed verdict for NBC, we must reach the constitutional issues, particularly the question whether plaintiff should be characterized as a public figure. In Gertz, the Supreme Court held that one characterized as a public figure, as distinguished from a private individual, may recover for injury to reputation only on clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. 418 U.S. at 342, 94 S.Ct. at 3008 (emphasis added). 3 In balancing the need to protect private personality and reputation against the need to assure to the freedoms of speech and press that 'breathing space' essential to their free exercise, the Supreme Court has developed a general test to determine public figure status. 31 Gertz establishes a two-step analysis to determine if an individual is a public figure. First, does a public controversy exist? Second, what is the nature and extent of (the) individual's participation in that public controversy? 418 U.S. at 352, 94 S.Ct. at 3013. Three factors determine the nature and extent of an individual's involvement: the extent to which participation in the controversy is voluntary, the extent to which there is access to channels of effective communication in order to counteract false statements, and the prominence of the role played in the public controversy. 418 U.S. at 344-45, 94 S.Ct. at 3009. 32 The Supreme Court has not clearly defined the elements of a public controversy. It is evident that it is not simply any controversy of general or public interest. Not all judicial proceedings are public controversies. For example, dissolution of a marriage through judicial proceedings is not the sort of 'public controversy' referred to in Gertz. Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 455, 96 S.Ct. 958, 965, 47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976). Several factors, however, lead to the conclusion that the Scottsboro case is the kind of public controversy referred to in Gertz. The Scottsboro trials were the focus of major public debate over the ability of our courts to render even-handed justice. It generated widespread press and attracted public attention for several years. It was also a contributing factor in changing public attitudes about the right of black citizens to equal treatment under law and in changing constitutional principles governing the right to counsel and the exclusion of blacks from the jury. 33 The first factor in determining the nature and extent of plaintiff's participation is the prominence of her role in the public controversy. She was the only alleged victim, and she was the major witness for the State in the prosecution of the nine black youths. Ruby Bates, the other young woman who earlier had testified against the defendants, later recanted her incriminating testimony. Plaintiff was left as the sole prosecutrix. Therefore, she played a prominent role in the public controversy. 34 The second part of the test of public figure status is also met. Plaintiff had access to the channels of effective communication and hence a realistic opportunity to counteract false statements. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 344, 94 S.Ct. at 3009. The evidence indicates that plaintiff recognized her importance to the criminal trials and the interest of the public in her as a personality. The press clamored to interview her. She clearly had access to the media and was able to broadcast her view of the events. 35 The most troublesome issue is whether plaintiff voluntarily thrust herself to the forefront of this public controversy. It cannot be said that a rape victim voluntarily injects herself into a criminal prosecution for rape. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 457, 96 S.Ct. 958, 966, 47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976). In such an instance, voluntariness in the legal sense is closely bound to the issue of truth. If she was raped, her participation in the initial legal proceedings was involuntary for the purpose of determining her public figure status; if she falsely accused the defendants, her participation in this controversy was voluntary. But legal standards in libel cases should not be drawn so that either the courts or the press must first determine the issue of truth before they can determine whether an individual should be treated as a public or a private figure. The principle of libel law should not be drawn in such a way that it forces the press, in an uncertain public controversy, to guess correctly about a woman's chastity. 36 When the issue of truth and the issue of voluntariness are the same, it is necessary to determine the public figure status of the individual without regard to whether she voluntarily thrust herself in the forefront of the public controversy. If there were no evidence of voluntariness other than that turning on the issue of truth, we would not consider the fact of voluntariness. In such a case, the other factors prominence and access to media alone would determine public figure status. But in this case, there is evidence of voluntariness not bound up with the issue of truth. Plaintiff gave press interviews and aggressively promoted her version of the case outside of her actual courtroom testimony. In the context of a widely-reported, intense public controversy concerning the fairness of our criminal justice system, plaintiff was a public figure under Gertz because she played a major role, had effective access to the media and encouraged public interest in herself. 37