Chesapeake Pub. Corp. v. Williams
Decision Date | 01 September 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 136,136 |
Citation | 339 Md. 285,661 A.2d 1169 |
Parties | CHESAPEAKE PUBLISHING CORPORATION v. David M. WILLIAMS. , |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
David R. Thompson (Cowdrey, Thompson & Karsten, P.A., on brief), Easton, for petitioner.
David M. Williams, Chestertown, for respondent.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL and RAKER, JJ.
In this case we must determine whether the evidence presented by Petitioner David M. Williams about an allegedly libelous newspaper article was sufficient to support a defamation judgment against Respondent Chesapeake Publishing Corporation (Chesapeake).
The defamation action arose out of an acrimonious child custody dispute between Williams and his former wife, Joan B. Turner, which began in 1978. In September, 1984, Turner obtained a temporary custody order from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for Gloucester County, Virginia, the court stating that it found sufficient evidence "of abuse ... to warrant a[n] ... order allowing [Turner] to retain [her] child's custody temporarily but conditioned upon her immediately filing custody ... or abuse proceedings in the state of Maryland." On September 14, 1984, Turner filed a petition for custody in the Circuit Court for Talbot County, which included allegations of child abuse and an affidavit from police officer Thomas Gross describing an incident of abuse reported to him by the child and his observation of bruises consistent with the child's account. That incident, which became central to the custody proceeding, involved the child's claim that her father, Williams, grabbed her by the arm, tossed her against a wall, and threw a chair at her.
A custody hearing was held on September 17, 1984 and, with consent of the parties, the court (North, J.) met with the child alone in chambers at which time the child repeated her description of the chair incident and expressed her desire to live with her mother. In a written statement summarizing the proceedings, the court decided to leave temporary custody with Turner. Williams nevertheless continued to pursue custody of his child through the winter and spring of 1985, but to no avail.
In May of 1985, dissatisfied with his treatment in the courts, Williams circulated a letter to at least one thousand Talbot County voters, members of the Maryland General Assembly, and others involved in state politics. The letter urged voters to be wary of legislative action that would take away their constitutional right to elect judges to the Maryland circuit court. To demonstrate the need to retain this power, Williams proceeded to detail the facts of his own custody case, describing what he perceived to be improper conduct by Judge North, which, according to Williams, resulted in the court arbitrarily awarding custody of his child to her mother who was unfit. The letter did not mention that he was discussing his own custody dispute nor did it report any of the abuse allegations, which played a major role throughout the proceeding.
In June of 1985, Williams's letter came to the attention of Pat Emory, a reporter employed by Chesapeake. She telephoned Williams and, according to his testimony, informed him that she had received his voter letter and wanted to publish it, but that she needed more information about it first. Williams claims that he only spoke with Emory because he believed that she intended to publish his letter. Williams later testified that he told Emory that the custody dispute described in the correspondence was his own, but that he did not feel that it was necessary, or proper, to say that in the letter. He also said that he told her about the abuse allegations made by his former wife and daughter, explaining that the accusations were false and that, following an investigation, the Department of Social Services chose not to take any official action with regard to them. As to the alleged chair incident, which he insisted involved no physical abuse and simply amounted to a father disciplining his daughter for lying, Williams told Emory that he "hurt [his daughter's] feelings when [he] disciplined her, which is what [he] intended to do." He maintained that while he may have grabbed his daughter's arm and shook her, he never threw a chair at her. Williams encouraged Emory to verify his story by reviewing the extensive court file pertaining to the custody case.
On June 27, 1985, a newspaper article discussing Williams's letter as well as his custody battle appeared in The Star Democrat, a Chesapeake-owned paper published in Talbot County. The same text, with a different headline ("David Williams Initiates Campaign to Reclaim Child"), appeared on July 3, 1985 in the Kent County News, a Chesapeake-owned paper published in Kent County. The entire piece read as follows with the allegedly defamatory portions highlighted:
" " North, who has asked the Department of Social Services to find a foster home for Williams' daughter, sees another victim.
" 'The real tragedy of this whole thing is the poor little girl who has been torn one way and another,' he said."
On July 22, 1985, Williams filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against multiple defendants. The complaint included a defamation claim against Chesapeake in which Williams alleged that certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc.
...and substantially accurate.’ " Piscatelli v. Smith , 424 Md. 294, 35 A.3d 1140, 1149 (2012) (quoting Chesapeake Publ'g Corp. v. Williams , 339 Md. 285, 661 A.2d 1169, 1174 (1995) ). "The privilege arises from the public's interest in having access to information about official proceedings a......
-
Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center
...about it from Tull. With respect to Richardson's statement to the press, it obviously was not false. Chesapeake Publishing Corp. v. Williams, 339 Md. 285, 296, 661 A.2d 1169 (1995) (quoting Batson, 325 Md. at 726, 602 A.2d 1191, "[a] false statement is one that is not substantially correct.......
-
In re Tribune Media Co.
...conveyed false information about the plaintiff.94 Piscatelli, 424 Md. at 306, 35 A.3d 1140 (quoting Chesapeake Publ'g Corp. v. Williams, 339 Md. 285, 295, 661 A.2d 1169, 1174 (1995) ).95 Memphis Pub. Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412, 420 (Tenn.1978) (citations and internal quotation marks omi......
- Muscolino v. State