Leon Kendall v. Daily News Publishing Co
716 F.3d 82
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- This case concerns a Virgin Islands libel action by Judge Kendall against the Daily News and two reporters over three articles: Castillo bail decision, Williams house-arrest coverage, and Kendall’s retirement headline.
- The articles allegedly conveyed that Kendall knew of Castillo’s violent history or incorrectly described Williams’s supervision, thereby defaming him.
- The Virgin Islands Supreme Court held Kendall cannot prove actual malice for any of the statements, applying its independent appellate review.
- The Third Circuit granted certiorari to address (1) the proper actual-malice standard in defamation-by-implication, (2) the Virgin Islands’ independent-review framework, and (3) recusal issues.
- Congress enacted H.R. 6116 to replace certiorari review with direct Supreme Court review for Virgin Islands Supreme Court decisions; the Third Circuit concluded the statute does not strip its certiorari jurisdiction over pending cases.
- The Third Circuit conducted plenary review and affirmed the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for defamation-by-implication malice | Kendall argued higher communicative-intent standard | Daily News urged traditional falsity/knowledge sufficiency | Defendant must show intent or knowledge plus recklessness; standard adopted is broader than mere knowledge of falsity |
| Independent appellate review framework | Virgin Islands Court misapplied two-step independent review | Court correctly applied review framework | VI Supreme Court’s misapplication reversible only if result would differ; here it would not |
| Recusal in VI Supreme Court proceedings | Justices should have recused themselves due to pending contempt charge | Harmless error; no need to decide recusal since plenary review cures potential bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1984) (independent review; credibility findings hinge on jury determinations)
- Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (reckless disregard; limits of independent review)
- Schiavone Constr. Co. v. Time, Inc., 847 F.2d 1069 (3d Cir. 1988) (actual malice requires knowledge or reckless disregard; subjective inquiry)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (intent/statement mind-set; recklessness as threshold for malice)
- Saenz v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1988) (defamation-by-implication standard; intent or knowledge recklessness approach)
- Compuware Corp. v. Moody’s Investors Servs., Inc., 499 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2007) (beyond knowledge of falsity required in defamation-by-implication)
- Howard v. Antilla, 294 F.3d 244 (1st Cir. 2002) (defamation-by-implication standard includes knowledge/recklessness as part of communicative intent)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (definition of actual malice; recklessness balanced with First Amendment values)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2011) (clear-and-convincing standard; credibility and evidence in malice inquiry)