Court Opinion

ID: 9586563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:12:52.147838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:43.038684
License: Public Domain

Benham, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that appellant has shown by “clear and convincing evidence” that appellee acted with actual malice, I must dissent.
Appellant maintains that appellee had the requisite actual malice because appellee knew the letter was false or recklessly disregarded the true facts. The facts, as memorialized in a ten-page memorandum by the head of the special prosecution division of the State Law Department who summarized the investigative file of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, are as follows: On August 24, 1984, two trucking officials whose company’s application for a certificate amendment had been denied by a PSC hearing officer, obtained $800 each from their *294personal checking accounts and went to Barber’s office where each gave him four $100 bills in an envelope bearing the donor’s return address. They then discussed the hearing officer’s decision and the appellate process. Barber filed campaign financial disclosure reports in August and October 1984 that did not reflect the receipt of the $800 from the trucking officials. Four days after the visit to Barber, one of the trucking officials visited another PSC commissioner who refused the official’s offer of money. The commissioner mentioned the attempted bribe at a subsequent meeting of all the PSC commissioners. Ten days after receiving the money, Barber called the official who had contacted the other commissioner and told him to stay away from that commissioner. In November 1984, after Barber visited the Georgia Attorney General and reported he had $1,000 in cash that had been given to him as a campaign contribution, GBI agents and the head of the State Law Department’s special prosecution division visited Barber who told them of the trucking officials’ visit; stated he had no recollection of receiving money from them in 1984 but thought he might have since they had given him money in 1982; and denied that he had talked with anyone about the officials’ PSC case. He later admitted that he had spoken with the trucking firm’s attorney about the case. Barber later gave to the GBI the $800 in cash, in the original envelopes, stating he had no recollection of a 1984 contribution from the trucking officials. On November 29, 1984, Barber filed an amended campaign financial disclosure report that reflected the receipt of $800 from the trucking officials. In February 1985, the Attorney General informed Barber and his attorneys that he intended to present to the Fulton County Grand Jury a proposed indictment charging Barber with bribery, but would forego that action if Barber resigned from his office. Ten days later Barber resigned and the Attorney General agreed to make no presentment to the grand jury concerning the $800 payment by the trucking officials to Barber. The following day, the trucking officials were charged in an indictment with bribery. (While the memo does not make the distinction, other documents in the GBI file on the PSC investigtion reflect that the trucking officials were indicted for attempting to bribe two other members of the PSC, not appellant.) One official pled nolo contendere to one count and was given a one-year sentence, suspended upon the payment of a $10,000 fine and restitution of $2,000. Charges against the other trucking official were dropped. The $800 was returned to the trucking officials.
The following facts are discerned from various depositions given and affidavits executed in this matter. In February 1985, the Attorney General, in the presence of appellee and the head of the special prosecution division, briefed the governor on the investigation and informed him that there was sufficient evidence to present to a grand *295jury. The Attorney General expressed his desire to give Barber the opportunity to resign in exchange for the Attorney General’s decision not to seek an indictment. Since the Attorney General had presentments prepared, the governor believed that the evidence seemed more than sufficient to seek an indictment. In his affidavit, appellee Perdue swore he heard the Attorney General tell the governor that he considered the case against Barber to be strong and conviction likely, and that the governor concurred that the evidence was more than sufficient to seek an indictment. In a deposition, Perdue recalled the Attorney General saying that the evidence that Barber had taken a bribe was overwhelming. No other attendee of the meeting recalls the Attorney General discussing the likelihood of conviction. Two days after the governor’s meeting with the Attorney General, Perdue talked with Phil Peters, the Director of the GBI, who, according to Perdue, opined that Barber had taken a bribe. According to his affidavit and deposition, Perdue, while preparing the letter now at issue, reviewed the GBI file on Barber, particularly the file summary memo, although he did not read every page contained in the file. He telephonically sought the assistance of the Attorney General on the “technical” aspects of the letter’s second paragraph. In his deposition, the Attorney General confirmed that Perdue had called him, and recalled that Perdue wanted to ensure that he was accurately characterizing what had transpired with Barber. Perdue swore he made the changes suggested by the Attorney General, and gave the letter to the governor’s press secretary in order that she might edit it. In an effort to ensure that the letter “tracked” the GBI file accurately, Perdue asked the press secretary to give the letter to the governor’s assistant legal counsel for his review and opinion. Perdue swore that the press secretary told him that the legal counsel had compared the letter to the GBI file and had opined that it was consistent with the GBI file and the file summary memo. The press secretary testified that she proofread the draft and, at Perdue’s request, gave it to the governor’s assistant legal counsel for review to ensure the letter was consistent with the GBI file. The assistant legal counsel informed her that he had reviewed the letter and found it to be consistent with the file and the file summary memo, which information she relayed to Perdue. The assistant legal counsel executed an affidavit in which he stated that he had reviewed the letter and had concluded that the representations made therein concerning Barber were consistent with the file summary memo and the file.
Concerning the contents of the letter, Perdue acknowledged that he knew when he wrote the letter that Barber had not been charged with bribery. The assistant legal counsel acknowledged that he knew at the time he reviewed the letter that the trucking official had never been charged with bribing Barber. The Attorney General testified *296that the second sentence of the second paragraph was accurate with the qualification that one is never sure of an indictment or a conviction. After studying the third sentence of the second paragraph, the Attorney General pointed out an inaccuracy in that the trucking official, having pled nolo contendere, had not been convicted. He did agree that it would be “natural and normal” to infer from the letter that the trucking official had been convicted and fined for bribing Barber, which inference was factually incorrect. The assistant legal counsel also acknowledged that a reasonable man could have inferred that the third sentence of the second paragraph referred to a conviction for bribing Barber. The head of the special prosecution division testified that while he thought it was “dangerous” to write a letter saying that Barber had accepted a bribe, such a letter would be accurate. He agreed that the third sentence of the second paragraph could be interpreted as saying that the official gave Barber money and was convicted for that action. Concerning the reference to Sam Caldwell, Perdue testified that he believed both Caldwell and Barber had betrayed the public trust and embarrassed state government. The Attorney General testified that he would not have made a comparison of Barber with Caldwell.
In support of his contention that Perdue acted with actual malice, appellant questions Perdue’s motives in authoring and publishing the letter. Perdue swore that he had no personal malice or animosity for appellant. “[I]n the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (85 SC 209, 13 LE2d 125) (1964), [the U. S. Supreme Court] held that even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will his expression was protected by the First Amendment: ‘Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.’ Id., at 73. Thus, while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.” Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 53 (108 SC 876, 99 LE2d 41) (1988). “Constitutional malice does not involve the motives of the speaker or publisher, though they may be wrong. ...” Williams v. Trust Co., 140 Ga. App. 49, 56 (230 SE2d 45) (1976).
Appellant also finds actual malice in Perdue’s failure to investigate. “[R]eckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the *297truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice.” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U. S. 727, 731 (88 SC 1323, 20 LE2d 262) (1968). In both his affidavit and his deposition, Perdue remains constant on the point that he believed the accuracy of the facts as he stated them in the letter, and continues to believe them. While appellee cannot “automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true” (St. Amant v. Thompson, supra, at 732), appellant has failed to present clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard on appellee’s part, i.e., that appellee entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id. at 731. “Neither lies nor false communications serve the ends of the First Amendment, and no one suggests their desirability or further proliferation. But to insure the ascertainment and publication of the truth about public affairs, it is essential that the First Amendment protect some erroneous publications as well as true ones.” St. Amant v. Thompson, supra at 732. Without determining whether appellee’s statements were true, I must conclude that inasmuch as appellant failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that appellee published the material with actual malice, this court should affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In its reliance on inferences based on circumstantial evidence, the majority loses sight of the standard of proof it espoused at the outset of its opinion: actual malice must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The “objective undisputed facts” which the majority holds out as having a bearing on the issue of malice are not so objective as is asserted. Most of those “objective facts” show only that the evénts giving rise to this action were political in nature. I am not ready to assert that the fact that speech occurs in the context of political activity, that it is intended to discredit a candidate for office to whom the speaker is politically opposed, that the communication is on a private letterhead, and that it was made for the purpose of influencing votes is evidence of actual malice. Such a holding, which is what the majority advances, would seriously inhibit the heretofore uninhibited give- and-take which is inherent in the political process in this country. The majority’s insistence that appellee had access to the “true facts” is inconsistent with its characterization of the matters asserted by appellee as untested in court: the “true facts” relied on by the majority are largely from the same sources relied on by appellee and were no more validated by a court than were the “facts” relied upon by appellee.
The libel laws of this nation, as applied to public figures such as appellant, do not require that the speaker be correct in his assertions, only that such misstatements as may be made are made without actual malice. Appellee put forth undisputed evidence that he did not *298act with actual malice. The cases cited by the majority require that a plaintiff bear a heavy burden in order to show actual malice on the part of one who takes part in the spirited debate which characterizes this country’s political and governmental processes. Appellant did not bear that burden. A web of inferences, in the face of direct evidence to the contrary, simply does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence. The trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to appellee, and I would affirm that judgment.
Decided December 20, 1989
Rehearing denied January 23, 1990
James A. Mackay, Cook & Palmour, Bobby Lee Cook, for appellant.
Chilivis & Grindler, Nickolas P. Chilivis, Gary G. Grindler, Glass, McCullough, Sherrill & Harrold, Robert S. Jones, L. James Weil, Jr., Hull, Towill, Norman & Barrett, David E. Hudson, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray, Judge Birdsong, and Judge Sognier join in this dissent.