HENRY v. COLLINS, 380 U.S. 356 (1965)
- Argued:
- N/A
- Decided:
- March 29, 1965
- Decided by:
- Warren Court, 1964
- Legal Principle at Issue:
- Whether the freedom of speech provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect a criminal suspect who makes a false statement about a police officer without "actual malice."
- Action:
- Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.
See Opinion tab for full case information.
Majority Opinion
John Harlan (1955-71) Potter Stewart William Brennan Byron White Earl Warren Tom Clark
Concurring Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
HENRY
v.
COLLINS.
Supreme Court of United States.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI.
Robert L. Carter, Barbara A. Morris, Jack H. Young and Frank D. Reeves for petitioner in both cases.
W. O. Luckett for respondents in both cases.
PER CURIAM.
The petitions for certiorari are granted. The judgments are reversed.
After petitioner’s arrest on a charge of disturbing the peace, he issued a statement to the effect that this arrest was the result of “a diabolical plot,” in which respondents, the County Attorney and Chief of Police of Clarksdale, were implicated. Respondents brought suits for libel and obtained jury verdicts. The Supreme Court of Mississippi *357 affirmed. ___ Miss. ___, 158 So. 2d 28; ___ Miss. ___, 158 So. 2d 695.
The following instructions requested by the respondents, approved by the trial judge, were read to the jury:
“The court instructs the jury for the plaintiff that malice does not necessarily mean hatred or ill will, but that malice may consist merely of culpable recklessness or a wilful and wanton disregard of the rights and interests of the person defamed.”
The jury, was also instructed, at respondents request, that
“. . . [I]f you believe from the evidence that defendant published a false statement charging that his arrest . . . was the result of a diabolical plot . . . , you may infer malice, as defined in these instructions, from the falsity and libelous nature of the statement, although malice as a legal presumption does not arise from the fact that the statement in question is false and libelous. It is for you to determine as a fact, if you have first determined from the evidence that defendant published the statement in question and that it is false, whether or not the statement in question was actually made with malice.”
The jury might well have understood these instructions to allow recovery on a showing of intent to inflict harm, rather than intent to inflict harm through falsehood. See Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 73. “The constitutional guarantees . . . [prohibit] a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made . . . with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 279-280.
For the reasons set out in their respective concurring opinions in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. *358 254, 293-305, and Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 79-88, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG concur in reversal of these judgments, not merely for error in the instructions read to the jury, but on the ground that it would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to subject petitioner to any libel judgment solely because of his publication of criticisms against respondents’ performance of their public duties.
NOTES
[*] Together with No. 90, Henry v. Pearson, also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court.
ULYSSES TORY, et al. v. JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., 544 U.S. 734 (2005)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
RODERICK JACKSON v. BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION, 544 U.S. 167 (2005)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, et al. v. JAMES DALE, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
WISCONSIN v. TODD MITCHELL, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
R.A.V. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
JEFFREY M. MASSON v. NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, INC., ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC. AND JANET MALCOLM, 501 U.S. 496 (1991)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
MILKOVICH v. LORAIN JOURNAL CO. et al., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
HARTE-HANKS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. CONNAUGHTON, 491 U.S. 657 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., 487 U.S. 1 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
HUSTLER MAGAZINE AND LARRY C. FLYNT v. JERRY FALWELL, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL et al. v. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE et al., 481 U.S. 537 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
ANDERSON et al. v. LIBERTY LOBBY, INC., et al., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al. v. HEPPS et al., 475 U.S. 767 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
DUN & BRADSTREET, INC. v. GREENMOSS BUILDERS, INC., 472 U.S. 749 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
BOSE CORP. v. CONSUMERS UNION OF UNITED STATES, INC., 466 U.S. 485 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al. v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. et al., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
WOLSTON v. READER’S DIGEST ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., 443 U.S. 157 (1979)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
HERBERT v. LANDO et al., 441 U.S. 153 (1979)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. v. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO et al., 431 U.S. 85 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
TIME, INC. v. FIRESTONE, 424 U.S. 448 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
GERTZ v. ROBERT WELCH, INC., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO., DIVISION OF KNIGHT NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. TORNILLO, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, et al. v. ROBISON, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. MOSLEY, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
GRAYNED v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
ROSENBLOOM v. METROMEDIA, INC., 403 U.S. 29 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
MONITOR PATRIOT CO. et al. v. ROY, EXECUTRIX, 401 U.S. 265 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
TIME, INC. v. PAPE, 401 U.S. 279 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
OCALA STAR-BANNER CO. et al. v. DAMRON, 401 U.S. 295 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
GREENBELT COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING ASSN., INC., et al. v. BRESLER, 398 U.S. 6 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 205, WILL COUNTY, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
BECKLEY NEWSPAPERS CORP. v. HANKS, 389 U.S. 81 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
ASSOCIATED PRESS v. WALKER, 389 U.S. 28 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. v. BUTTS, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
WALKER et al. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 388 U.S. 307 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
BROWN et al. v. LOUISIANA, 383 U.S. 131 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
ROSENBLATT v. BAER, 383 U.S. 75 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
COX v. LOUISIANA, 379 U.S. 536 (1965)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
COX v. LOUISIANA, 379 U.S. 559 (1965)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases, Defamation and the Press
GIBSON v. FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, 372 U.S. 539 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
EDWARDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. BUTTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, et al., 371 U.S. 415 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
LOUISIANA ex rel. GREMILLION, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al., 366 U.S. 293 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
SHELTON et al. v. TUCKER et al., 364 U.S. 479 (1960)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Cases on Campus
BATES et al. v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK et al., 361 U.S. 516 (1960)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
FARMERS EDUCATIONAL & COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA, NORTH DAKOTA DIVISION, v. WDAY, INC., 360 U.S. 525 (1959)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. ALABAMA ex rel. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Civil Rights First Amendment Cases
BEAUHARNAIS v. ILLINOIS, 343 U.S. 250 (1952)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Defamation and the Press
Topics: Civil Rights First Amendment Cases, Defamation and the Press, Freedom of the Press
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.
Follow FIRE