Castellani & Cocoran v. The Scranton Times
161 A.3d 285
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In Jan. 2004 The Scranton Times published an article reporting that Lackawanna County Commissioners Castellani and Corcoran gave vague, evasive grand-jury testimony; the Commissioners sued for defamation.
- Subsequent grand-jury-related inquiries produced two judicial opinions (Judge Garb 9/14/04; Judge Feudale 6/29/05) concluding the Jan. 12 article was not borne out by the transcript.
- The Scranton Times published follow-up articles (Sept. 18, 2004 and July 7, 2005) reporting on those judicial opinions and repeating portions of the Jan. 12 story.
- Lower courts excluded the judges’ opinions as hearsay on falsity but allowed the follow-up articles as republications admissible to prove actual malice; this Court initially redacted judicial statements.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the judicial opinions admissible only to show the newspaper’s state of mind (malice), not falsity, and said a limiting instruction could be used (but left bifurcation for the trial court to consider).
- On remand this Superior Court panel holds bifurcation is required: Phase 1 — jury must decide falsity of the Jan. 12 article (without judicial-opinion evidence); if false, Phase 2 — jury decides actual malice (with the judges’ opinions and the follow-up articles admissible).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the judges’ post-publication opinions admissible at trial? | Plaintiffs argued the opinions are inadmissible hearsay and cannot prove falsity. | Scranton Times argued opinions are admissible to show the newspaper’s state of mind (malice). | Supreme Court: opinions admissible only to show state of mind (malice), not falsity; this panel follows that rule. |
| Are the Sept. 18 and July 7 follow-up articles republications admissible to prove malice? | Plaintiffs opposed admission as unfairly prejudicial and sought redaction. | Scranton Times maintained they are republications under Weaver and relevant to malice. | Held: they are republications admissible to prove malice, but judicial portions must be handled carefully under Supreme Court guidance. |
| Does admission of judicial opinions and related reporting unfairly prejudice defendant on falsity (Rule 403 concern)? | Plaintiffs contended the evidence is highly prejudicial and would be used to prove falsity. | Scranton Times argued prejudice can be cured by a limiting instruction; bifurcation not necessary. | Held: prejudice is significant because jurors will credit judges’ statements; limiting instruction insufficient to avoid unfair prejudice in a unified trial. |
| Should the trial be bifurcated (falsity first; malice second)? | Plaintiffs argued falsity and malice are interwoven and bifurcation would prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to prove the consolidated claims. | Scranton Times requested bifurcation to avoid juror exposure to judges’ opinions before falsity is decided. | Held: Trial must be bifurcated. Phase 1: determine falsity of Jan. 12 article (judicial opinions and follow-ups excluded). If false, Phase 2: determine malice using judges’ opinions and republications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Lancaster Papers, Inc., 926 A.2d 899 (Pa. 2007) (post-publication republication can bear on actual malice when republished after notice of falsity)
- Castellani v. Scranton Times, L.P., 124 A.3d 1229 (Pa. 2015) (judicial opinions admissible to prove newspaper’s state of mind but not falsity; limiting instruction vs. bifurcation discussion)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (public-official defamation requires proof of actual malice)
- Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 475 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1986) (plaintiff must prove falsity for matters of public concern)
- Coleman v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 570 A.2d 552 (Pa.Super. 1990) (bifurcation appropriate where it avoids prejudice and facilitates orderly proceedings)
- Ptak v. Masontown Men's Softball League, 607 A.2d 297 (Pa.Super. 1992) (upholding bifurcation to prevent liability determination from being influenced by sympathy/damage evidence)
- Lewis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 833 A.2d 185 (Pa.Super. 2003) (First Amendment requires falsity proof when publication concerns public interest or media defendant)