Piscatelli v. Smith
12 A.3d 164
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Piscatelli sued City Paper and its owner for defamation and invasion of privacy/false light over two City Paper articles about the Convertino/Wisniewski murders.
- The December 6, 2006 article quoted Piscatelli’s interview and summarized a discovery memo alleging an unknown man linked Piscatelli to the murders.
- The June 20, 2007 article discussed Morgan’s suspicions and urged that Miller acted with others, suggesting Piscatelli’s possible motive.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees on all counts on February 17, 2009.
- On appeal, court held Maryland defamation law allows privilege defenses (fair reporting, fair comment) and found no genuine material facts disputing those defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fair reporting privilege applies to the December article | Piscatelli argues the privilege is overcome if misstatement or abuse occurred | Smith/City Paper contend the reporting was fair and accurate | Yes; privileged and not actionable |
| Whether fair reporting privilege or fair comment covers statements about motives and beliefs | Piscatelli asserts motives attributed to him were false and defamatory | Articles presented opinions and fair comment on public matters | Yes; statements fall within fair reporting/comment privileges |
| Whether statements based on Morgan’s statements and investigators’ notes are actionable defamation | Piscatelli contends the statements imply crimes or involvement | Statements are either true representations or protected opinions | Yes; protected as fair reporting/fair comment opinions |
| Whether invasion of privacy/false light claim survives defamation defenses | Piscatelli maintains separate invasion/publicity claim | Defenses apply to defamation extend to related claims | No; defenses disposed of defamation grounds, invasion claim fails on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesapeake Publishing Co. v. Williams, 339 Md. 285 (1995) (defamation privilege for reporting on proceedings; fair and substantially accurate requirement)
- A.S. Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. 267 (1961) (fair comment on public matters; distinction of fact vs. opinion)
- Peroutka v. Streng, 116 Md.App. 301 (1997) (four-factor framework for opinion-based liability; fair comment/defamation)
- Rosenberg v. Helinski, 328 Md. 664 (1992) (restatement-based privilege analysis for fair reporting; malice standards)
- King v. Barrow, 325 Md. 684 (1992) (definition of falsity in defamation; substantial truth standard)