Court Opinion

ID: 9658070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:45:53.37263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:51.218470
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). The signers of the lead opinion conclude that Joseph Judeas Locricchio and Gary Francell1 failed to prove that the Pine Knob series published in the Detroit News falsely implied that they "were members or associates of organized crime.”2 The concurrence concludes that the Detroit News is not subject to liability because it "has not made or directly implied any provably false factual assertion, and has not, by selective omission of crucial relevant facts, misleadingly conveyed any false factual implication.”3
I dissent because there was sufficient evidence for submission to the jury that the Detroit News *146falsely implied that Locricchio and Francell were members or associates of organized crime.
Michael Wendland, one of the reporters, testified at the trial that he recalled telling Locricchio and Francell, when he interviewed them shortly before the Pine Knob series was run, that "we did not find any organized crime involvement in the ownership of Pine Knob, nor did we think that your clients were members of the Maña." (Emphasis added.) He added, "I don’t believe Gary Francell or Joe Locricchio are members of the Mafia.” The follow-up question and answer were:
Q. You knew that when this headline was written, didn’t you?
A. Yes, I — that was my conclusion.
Nevertheless, the Detroit News published the Pine Knob series which posed the question whether Locricchio’s and Francell’s investment in Pine Knob was Mafia — "[i]s it Mafia?” — and which linked them to two unsolved murders.
Wendland and another reporter who worked on the story, Jean Gadomski, acknowledged that although they had investigated the Harvey Leach and Agnes Brush murders, as far as they could determine, neither Locricchio nor Francell was a suspect. Nevertheless, the Detroit News Pine Knob series linked them to the investigation of those homicides in an article which repeated the question, "Is it Mafia?”
The question in the instant case is whether the jury could reasonably conclude that the Pine Knob series implied that Locricchio and Francell were members or associates of organized crime, and that it was defamatory and false. I would answer the question in the affirmative.
*147I
The four articles appeared on the front pages of the Detroit News during the four-day period beginning Sunday, April 22, 1979.
The first article began with the headline, "The Pine Knob story: How 2 friends and hustle created a big resort, millions in debts and a question: 'Is it Mafia?’ ” Each of the four articles included a caption box, reading:
In the last eight years Pine Knob, in Oakland County, has developed from a losing ski resort into one of the nation’s foremost entertainment complexes, worth millions. During these years the persistent question in Michigan and elsewhere has been, "Is it Mafia?”
The first article states that
tangled in the confusing, often incredible story of how [Locricchio and Francell] made Pine Knob, are:
Two unsolved murders. Though separate., the killings share common elements that lead to some of the same people who figured in Pine Knob’s devopment.
A so-called "money wash” in which a Toronto firm linked to an associate of Meyer Lansky, the Mafia’s key money man, hid the source of a $200,000 Pine Knob loan.
A $4-million cost overrun by Locricchio and Fran-cell in the building of a glittering theater for Las Vegas’s Aladdin Hotel and Casino.
Several investors associated with organized crime who either lent or helped Locricchio and Francell raise large sums of money.
The tag line at the end of the first article read:
Tomorrow: A money wash and two murders.
*148The second article, headlined, "The Pine Knob story: How loan got 'washed,’ ” featured a photograph of an automobile with its trunk open. The caption under the photograph read, "Harvey Leach’s car was found with his body in the trunk.” This article was continued on a later page, which led with the headline, "How vital Pine Knob loan was 'washed’ in Toronto,” and was accompanied by a picture of Leach. The story traced the $200,000 loan, and described the "laundering” process. The article also contained the following statement:
While the transaction was legal, it was unorthodox and it attracted the attention of the Ontario Provincial Police, who in turn talked to the fbi.
And with regard to the murders,
Locricchio and Francell say they know nothing about either killing, and insist it is coincidental that some of the same people were involved in the loans to Leach and Pine Knob. A score of police agencies have investigated the murders and have not proved otherwise. . . . The only suspect [in the murder of Agnes Brush] was the 61-year-old laborer who worked with Miss Brush.
The third article was headlined "The Pine Knob story: A brush with bankruptcy.”
The fourth and last article was headlined, "Partners stalked by Mafia-hunters,” and, on the continuing page, "Mafia-hunters stalk Locricchio, Fran-cell.”
ii
Chief Justice Rehnquist opened his review of the law in one of the most recent pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court, Milkovich v *149Lorain Journal Co, 497 US 1; 110 S Ct 2695; 111 L Ed 2d 1, 13 (1990), with the following:
Who steals my purse steals trash;
’Tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed. [Othello, act III, scene 3.]
In Milkovich, the Court stated that the majority was not persuaded that in addition to the protections of media expression the Court had enunciated, beginning with New York Times Co v Sullivan, 376 US 254; 84 S Ct 710; 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964):
an additional separate constitutional privilege for "opinion” is required to ensure the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. [Ill L Ed 2d 19.]
The Court turned to the case at hand and said:
The dispositive question in the present case then becomes whether or not a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statements in the Diadiun column imply an assertion that petitioner Milko-vich perjured himself in a judicial proceeding. We think this question must be answered in the affirmative. [Id. Emphasis added.]
The "dispositive” question, as stated by the United States Supreme Court in Milkovich, whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statements implied an assertion that was defamatory, is long established, and is expressed in the Restatement of Torts as follows:
The meaning of a communication is that which *150the recipient correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express.
[3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 563, p 162.]
The Restatement continues that "[t]he court determines . . . whether a communication is capable of bearing a particular meaning, and . . . whether that meaning is defamatory. . . . The jury determines whether a communication, capable of a defamatory meaning, was so understood by its recipient.” Id., § 614, p 311.
In Gustin v Evening Press Co, 172 Mich 311, 313; 137 NW 674 (1912), this Court affirmed an order of the circuit court overruling a demurrer to plaintiff’s declaration for libel. The article was headlined:
Goes to Australia.
Alpena Man Turns Over Assets and Seeks New Country.
The Court said that " 'the sting of the libel was contained in the headlines,’ ” and quoted with approval Justice Cooley’s statement in his work on torts that in determining whether words are libelous, " 'they are to be taken in their plain and natural import, according to the ideas they are calculated to convey to those to whom they are addressed . . . .’” Id., p 315.4
In McNair v Hearst Corp, 494 F2d 1309, 1310 (CA 9, 1974), the Seattle Post-Intelligencer had published the following headline and first two paragraphs:
"The High Cost of a Divorce
Five years ago, Barbara Evans hired a lawyer to represent her in a divorce action.
*151Today the lawyer owns the home, worth between $55,000 and $65,000, which Mrs. Evans received as part of the 1966 divorce settlement
The court held that a reasonable reader could interpret these words to mean that Mrs. Evans had paid her attorney the value of her house for her divorce, although the body of the article related the true circumstances that the lawyer was paid $3000 for the divorce, and obtained the house when the estranged husband failed to make the payments:
Under Washington law whether an article is true will depend on what it is read to say — on how it would ordinarily be understood by persons reading it. [Citation omitted.] The question here, as we view it, is whether the article as a whole can be said effectively to have eliminated the impact of any false impression created at the outset. In our judgment this question cannot here be answered as matter of law and remains a question for the jury. [Id., p 1311.]
In Las Vegas Sun, Inc v Franklin, 74 Nev 282, 286; 329 P2d 867 (1958), the Supreme Court of Nevada considered a series of articles. The court said that the libelous statements were
found, not in the body of the article, but in its headline and tag-line. The headline read,
"Babies for sale. Franklin black market trade of child told.”
The tag-line read,
"Tomorrow — Blackmail by Franklin.”
The body of the article factually recited the manner in which Franklin had secured the relinquishment of a baby for adoption.
*152The court considered the newspaper’s argument "that the headline and tagline cannot be considered apart from the context in which they were used. Thus, they contend, the headline must be qualified by and read in the light of the article to which it referred and the tagline must be qualified by and read in the light of the subsequent article to which it referred.” Id. at 287. The court rejected the argument, stating:
The text of a newspaper article is not ordinarily the context of its headline, since the public frequently reads only the headline. [Citations omitted.] The same is true of a tagline or leader, since the public frequently reads only the leader without reading the subsequent article to which it refers. The defamation of Franklin contained in the headline was complete upon its face. It was not necessary to read the article in order that the defamatory nature of the statement be understood or connected with Franklin. The same is true of the tagline. [Id.]
Nor is it determinative here that the sting of the headline concludes with a question mark — "Is it Mafia?”:
A man cannot libel another, by the publication of language, the meaning and damaging effect of which is clear to all men, and where the identity of the person meant cannot be doubted, and then escape liability through the use of a question mark. [Spencer v Minnick, 41 Okla 613, 617; 139 P 130 (1914).]
A defamatory statement, "He is a womanizer,” or "She is a tramp,” would not become less so if phrased, "Is he a womanizer?” or "Is she a tramp?”
*153Ill
This is not a case where a plaintiff seeks to hold a media defendant "liable for the reader’s possible inferences, speculations, or conclusions”5 drawn from a "straightforward” presentation of the facts. The headlines and tag lines, and the persistently posed question, "Is it Mafia?” suggested the inferences, speculations, and conclusions for the reader.
The jury could properly find that a reasonable reader of the Detroit News could understand that the Pine Knob Series not only conveyed the fourteen facts the trial court found to be true, but also that Locricchio and Francell were guilty of a continuing course of criminal wrongdoing generally associated with organized crime and membership or association in the "Mafia,” including involvements in the murders of Agnes Brush and Harvey Leach, and an illegal money laundering scheme, and that the communication was defamatory and false.
Mallett, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 The verdict awarded Francell damages and found that Locricchio had no cause for action.

 Ante, p 89.

 Cavanagh, C.J., ante, p 144.

 1 Cooley, Torts, pp 409-410.

 Cavanagh, C.J., ante, p 144 (emphasis added).