Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • 1998

Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corp.

162 F.3d 1036

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a sensational front-page headline can be actionable libel even if a distant accompanying article is not defamatory, when a jury could find that the headline falsely conveyed a damaging accusation and was published with actual malice.

Background

One week after O.J. Simpson’s acquittal, Globe Communications published a National Examiner cover headline stating: “COPS THINK KATO DID IT! ... he fears they want him for perjury, say pals.” A substantially similar headline appeared above an article on page 17. Brian “Kato” Kaelin alleged that readers reasonably would understand “did it” to mean that police believed he committed the Brown and Goldman murders, even though Globe had no information that police considered him a murder suspect.

The article itself discussed friends’ purported concerns that police were seeking evidence that Kaelin had committed perjury. During discovery, the Examiner’s news editor, John Garton, testified that the headline was not very accurate to the story and that he was somewhat concerned readers could connect “did it” to the murders. He also testified that the paper had no information that any police officer believed Kaelin was involved in the murders, and that the front page was what sold the paper.

Kaelin sued Globe for libel in California state court; Globe removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. The district court granted Globe summary judgment, focusing primarily on the nondefamatory article text and concluding that Kaelin had not produced evidence of actual malice. Kaelin appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the cover and internal headlines were reasonably susceptible of a false and defamatory meaning.

Holding

Yes. A reasonable jury could find that the headlines falsely implied police believed Kaelin committed the murders.

Reasoning

The court applied California’s average-reader standard rather than a lawyer’s close parsing of the words. In the immediate aftermath of Simpson’s widely publicized murder acquittal, an ordinary reader could reasonably take “COPS THINK KATO DID IT!” to mean that police thought Kaelin committed the Brown and Goldman murders.

Globe’s proposed interpretation—that “it” meant perjury—was plausible, but it was not the only reasonable reading. The perjury subheading and the first sentence of the headline expressed distinct ideas; neither grammar nor logic required a reader to connect “did it” solely to perjury. Because the headline was reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning, the issue was for a jury.

Issue #2

Whether a potentially defamatory front-page headline can support a libel claim when the accompanying article is assumed not to be defamatory.

Holding

Yes. The publication must be considered as a whole, but a headline is an integral part of that publication and may itself create an actionable defamatory impression.

Reasoning

California’s whole-publication rule prevents liability based on words artificially removed from their context. But that rule does not mean every part of a publication must be harmless merely because other portions are accurate. A single false, defamatory statement may support libel liability even within a much longer nondefamatory text.

California authority treats headlines and captions as part of an article, not as liability-free promotional language. The court relied on cases recognizing that headlines can create implications not cured by article text, as well as Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing that front-page headlines may mislead even readers who see only the cover.

Whether the page-17 article cured the cover’s potentially defamatory implication was a factual question. The article was seventeen pages from the cover, the cover gave no page reference, and a reasonable jury could find that readers—including those who merely glanced at the front page—would retain the implication that Kaelin was a murder suspect.

Issue #3

Whether Kaelin presented sufficient clear and convincing evidence of actual malice to survive summary judgment.

Holding

Yes. A reasonable jury could find that Globe published the headline knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false.

Reasoning

Because Kaelin was a public figure, he had to show actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. At summary judgment, the question was whether a reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, while drawing justified inferences and resolving credibility questions in Kaelin’s favor.

Garton’s testimony supplied direct evidence supporting actual malice. He acknowledged that the headline was not very accurate to the story and that he was concerned readers might connect “did it” to the murders. A jury, rather than the court, had to assess Globe’s claim that the perjury subheading nevertheless clarified the headline.

Globe also admittedly had no information suggesting Kaelin was a murder suspect and did not itself believe he was one. Publishing “COPS THINK KATO DID IT!” despite that absence of supporting information was circumstantial evidence that Globe acted with a high awareness of probable falsity.

Finally, Garton testified that the tabloid sold papers through its front page rather than its inside content. A jury could infer that Globe chose a sensational but inaccurate headline for commercial benefit. Taken together, Globe’s editorial choices could support a finding of intentional or recklessly false publication, not merely negligent journalism.