Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton

105 L. Ed. 2d 562 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1989

Facts

Daniel Connaughton, a public figure and judicial candidate, sued the Journal News for libel after it published an article containing false allegations against him. A jury found the newspaper acted with actual malice, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment after an independent review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine if the Court of Appeals' review was consistent with the independent judgment standard for actual malice.

Issue

The issue is whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the "actual malice" standard and conducted the required independent review of the record, particularly concerning the credibility of witnesses and subsidiary facts, in a public figure defamation case.

Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, concluding that the evidence in the record, particularly the newspaper's deliberate avoidance of key information, was sufficient to establish actual malice. The Court found that the newspaper's failure to interview a crucial witness and listen to relevant tapes demonstrated a purposeful avoidance of the truth.

Rule

Public figures must prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence, meaning the defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Appellate courts must conduct an independent review of the entire record to determine if actual malice is proven with convincing clarity, though credibility findings of the trier of fact are given deference. Purposeful avoidance of the truth, such as failing to investigate obvious doubts about an informant's veracity, can satisfy the reckless disregard standard.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-02-06. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.