Piscatelli v. Smith
35 A.3d 1140
Md.2012Background
- Respondents published two City Paper articles in 2006 and 2007 about the 2003 Baltimore murders of Convertino and Wisniewski, in which Piscatelli was mentioned unfavorably.
- Two years after the murders, Miller was charged and convicted of two counts of second‑degree murder; a memorandum noting a potential claim against Piscatelli became public in the Miller case file.
- Piscatelli testified at Miller's trial; his testimony concerned his relationship to Convertino and alleged motives surrounding the murders.
- Respondents summarized the supplemental discovery memorandum and Piscatelli's trial testimony in their articles, framing the case as still mysterious and suggesting potential involvement by Piscatelli.
- Piscatelli filed defamation and false light claims in Baltimore City Circuit Court; the court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and ultimately upheld the grant of summary judgment, finding no abuse of the fair reporting or fair comment privileges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the circuit court properly grant summary judgment on fair reporting privilege? | Piscatelli: privilege abused; reporting unfair/inaccurate. | Smith/City Paper: reports were fair and accurate; no abuse. | No abuse; privilege upheld; summary judgment proper. |
| Does fair comment privilege protect simple opinions based on disclosed facts in this context? | Responses based on defamatory underpinnings; not protected. | Opinions based on disclosed facts are privileged as fair comment. | Protected as simple opinion based on disclosed facts; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesapeake Publ'g Corp. v. Williams, 339 Md. 285 (Md. 1995) (fair reporting privilege requires fair and substantially accurate reports)
- Rosenberg v. Helinski, 328 Md. 664 (Md. 1992) (privacy and reporting privileges; post-trial reporting allowed if fair and accurate)
- Batson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684 (Md. 1992) (definitional standards for fair reporting; accuracy and fairness require absence of malice)
- Kirby, A.S. Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. 267 (Md. 1961) (test for distinguishing fact from opinion in fair comment)
- Kapiloff v. Dunn, 27 Md.App. 514 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975) (distinguishes simple versus mixed opinions under fair comment)
- Orrison v. Vance, 262 Md. 285 (Md. 1971) (abuse of privilege—when no malice shown, jury determination may be unnecessary)
- Harnish v. Herald-Mail Co., 264 Md. 326 (Md. 1972) (false light defamation standards aligned with defamation standards)