Belli v. Orlando Daily Newspapers, Inc.
389 F.2d 579 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a publication is capable of two meanings, one defamatory and one not, the court's role is to determine if the defamatory meaning is possible, but it is for the jury to determine if the publication was in fact understood in its defamatory sense by the common reader.
Facts:
- The Florida Bar Association invited Melvin Belli, a prominent attorney, to speak at its 1955 convention.
- The Bar agreed to pay for Mr. and Mrs. Belli's hotel bill as compensation.
- In 1964, an attorney named Leon Handley told Jean Yothers, a newspaper columnist, a story about this arrangement.
- Handley falsely claimed that after the convention, the Bar discovered the Bellis had charged hundreds of dollars in clothing bills to their hotel room, which the Bar had to pay.
- Yothers published an embellished version of this false story in the Orlando Evening Star.
- The published article included comments suggesting Belli had a deliberate "plan" to "take" the Florida Bar and that the Bar "had been taken."
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin Belli filed a diversity action for libel and slander against Jean Yothers, the Orlando Evening Star, Leon Handley, and others in the United States District Court.
- The district court dismissed Belli’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, finding the publication was not libelous per se as a matter of law.
- Belli (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the sole authority to determine that a publication is not libelous per se when the publication is capable of being interpreted in both a defamatory and a non-defamatory sense?
Opinions:
Majority - Wisdom, J.
No, a court does not have the sole authority. While a court determines in the first instance whether a publication is capable of a defamatory meaning, it is for the jury to decide if it was in fact understood as defamatory when more than one interpretation is possible. The court found that the newspaper article, especially its use of phrases like "the plan" and that the Bar "had been taken," was reasonably capable of being understood to mean that Belli, an attorney, had intentionally tricked and deceived the Florida Bar Association out of hundreds of dollars. This interpretation could injure Belli in his profession and hold him up to contempt, which falls within the categories of libel per se. Because the article is capable of this defamatory meaning, even if a non-defamatory meaning is also possible, the ultimate determination of how the publication was understood by the "common mind" must be made by a jury, not by the judge as a matter of law.
Concurring - Godbold, J.
No, the court does not have the sole authority to dismiss the claim, but the majority's reasoning is too hesitant. I would hold that the statements, both oral and written, were defamatory as a matter of law. There is no reasonable way to construe the publication in a non-defamatory sense. When a publication is so unambiguously defamatory, the court has a duty to declare it so and instruct the jury accordingly, rather than leaving the question of its defamatory nature to them. The jury's role should not be to determine if the statement was defamatory, but to determine the extent of damages.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinct roles of the judge and jury in defamation cases, particularly those involving libel per se. The court establishes that the judge acts as a gatekeeper, deciding only if a statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, while the jury acts as the ultimate fact-finder, deciding how the statement was actually understood by the public if ambiguity exists. This prevents premature dismissal of libel claims where a publication's meaning is contested. The opinion also reflects the judiciary's early efforts to apply the constitutional privilege for speech concerning public figures established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, leaving the factual determination of Belli's status and the public interest in the matter to the trial court.
Unlock the full brief for Belli v. Orlando Daily Newspapers, Inc.