Rosenberg v. Helinski
616 A.2d 866, 328 Md. 664, 20 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2233 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness who fairly and accurately reports the substance of their own sworn, in-court testimony to a third party outside of the judicial proceeding is protected from defamation liability by a qualified privilege, provided the witness did not maliciously orchestrate the proceeding as a pretext to defame.
Facts:
- In a contentious divorce and custody proceeding, Jacqueline Helinski alleged that her husband, Ronald Helinski, had sexually abused their two-year-old daughter.
- At a July 1985 hearing, the court found no evidence linking Ronald Helinski to the child's physical injuries and granted him unsupervised visitation.
- Jacqueline Helinski then hired Dr. Leon Rosenberg, a child psychologist, to evaluate the child.
- At a subsequent hearing in August 1985, Dr. Rosenberg testified that based on his evaluation, he concluded the child had been sexually abused by her father, Ronald Helinski.
- Immediately after the August hearing, Dr. Rosenberg was approached by a television news crew on the courthouse steps.
- In response to questions from a reporter, Dr. Rosenberg repeated the substance of his testimony, stating that the child had directly talked about being hurt by her father in the genital area and that her fear was genuine.
- The television station broadcast Dr. Rosenberg's statements as part of a news report that identified Ronald Helinski by name.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Helinski sued Dr. Leon Rosenberg for defamation in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a state trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Rosenberg, finding that his statements were protected by a privilege.
- Helinski, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding a factual question remained regarding Rosenberg's intent.
- Rosenberg, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, to review the decision of the intermediate appellate court.
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 the qualified privilege for fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings protect an expert witness from a defamation claim when the witness repeats the substance of their own defamatory in-court testimony to the news media on the courthouse steps?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, Chief Judge
Yes, the qualified privilege for fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings protects the expert witness. The privilege to report on judicial proceedings, which serves the public interest in transparency, is not limited to journalists but extends to any person who provides a fair and substantially accurate account of what transpired in court. Dr. Rosenberg's statements on the courthouse steps were an accurate summary of his in-court testimony and were not rendered unfair by the omission of other court rulings, which were collateral to the core defamatory statement. The 'self-report' exception to this privilege applies only when a person maliciously fabricates or orchestrates a judicial proceeding as a pretext to defame; there was no evidence that Dr. Rosenberg acted with such a corrupt motive, as he was a retained expert witness participating in a legitimate proceeding.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and strengthens the fair report privilege in Maryland by explicitly extending its protections to participants in a legal proceeding, not just disinterested third-party reporters like journalists. It significantly narrows the 'self-report' exception found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, limiting its application to bad-faith actors who abuse the judicial process as a tool for defamation. This ruling reinforces the strong public policy favoring open access to information about judicial proceedings, prioritizing the public's right to know over an individual's reputational interests when the report of the proceeding is fair and accurate.
