Peterson V. Grisham

Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723 (10th Cir. 2010)

Decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Parties: William N. Peterson; Gary Rogers; Melvin R. Hett, Plaintiffs-Appellants.

John Grisham; Doubleday Dell Publishing Group; Random House, Inc.; Robert Mayer; Broadway Books; Dennis Fritz; Seven Locks Press, Inc.; Barry Scheck, Defendants-Appellees.

Facts: In 1988, Ronald Williamson and Dennis Fritz were wrongly convicted of the rape and murder of Debra Sue Carter. Due to DNA evidence, both men were later exonerated by after spending more than ten years in jail. Later, the defendant, Legal-fiction author John Grisham later wrote "The Innocent Man" based on Williamson's true story. Co-defendant Dennis Fritz wrote his own book entitled "Journey Toward Justice" about his years in jail.

The plaintiffs, Oklahoma District Attorney, former police officer, and former state criminologist; who were negatively depicted in the books as to their involvement in the wrongful convictions, brought action against authors, publishers, and others, seeking relief for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.

Prior Proceedings: The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim.

Issue: The issue is whether statements made in the published works were sufficient to provide a basis for libel per se.

Holding: The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Rules: Oklahoma law defines libel as "a false or malicious unprivileged publication which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation." (Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1441) To satisfy the requirements for a libel claim, the plaintiffs must prove that statements made by the defendant were: "(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; and (3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher." (Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 335 F.3d 1161, 1166 (10th Cir.2003))

Reasoning: The plaintiffs must prove that a defendant committed libel per se and any damages directly resulting from the publication, and because plaintiffs in this case admit they incurred no damages, they must prove libel per se. Libel per se requires a statement that is "clearly defamatory on its face." (Miskovsky v. Tulsa Tribune Co., 678 P.2d 242, 247 (Okla.1983)) Statements considered to be "reasonably