Looking Back

When the nation’s legal focus fell upon Ocala

BY CARLTON REESE WITH THE HISTORIC OCALA PRESERVATION SOCIETY

In 1970, Ocala and Crystal River were part of a major Supreme Court case that is rarely talked about 50 years later and is likely only referred to sporadically in law schools across the country.

The case involved the local newspaper, a former mayor of Crystal River and questions regarding libel and “actual malice.”

In what was considered an honest mistake, the Ocala Star-Banner published a story which alleged that Leonard Damron had been charged in federal court with perjury. Damron, who was mayor of Crystal River, was at the time a candidate for county tax assessor. Problem was that the person who had actually been charged with perjury was Damron’s brother James, and not Leonard.

Two weeks after the original story was published, Leonard Damron lost the election and he blamed this on the Star-Banner’s story and subsequently sued for compensatory and punitive damages. In the end, lower courts ruled in his favor and awarded him $22,000 in compensatory damages but failed to award any punitive damages.

The reporter in this case gave an accurate account of the story, but a new editor who was familiar with Leonard’s name, but not James’, erroneously changed the name in the article. The Star-Banner printed two corrections to the story and in the initial court proceedings admitted to publishing a libelous story, but believed there was no actual malice toward a public official which would preclude it from paying damages.

The case made it to the United States Supreme Court with Harold B. Wahl representing the Star-Banner and Wallace Dunn representing Damron.

The case centered around precedent set in 1964 with the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case that deemed actual malice must be proven in the case of a public official for damages to be awarded. The Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron case decided in 1971 was used to help clarify the Times-Sullivan decision.

The Florida District Court had ruled that since Damron’s performance as a public official was not the basis for the inaccuracy of the story that it was, “unnecessary for the plaintiff to show malice.” The judge instructed the jurors that since the article was “libelous, per se,” its only task was to determine damages.

Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court began in December of 1970 with the decision handed down Feb. 24, 1971. Though conceding the Star-Banner was indeed guilty of libel in this case, the court nonetheless ruled in the newspaper’s favor. In his concurring opinion, Justice Byron White offered a scathing rebuke of libelous publishers who, “achieve nothing but gratuitous injury,” but noted that, “the sole basis for protecting publishers who spread false information is that otherwise the truth would be too often suppressed.”

White continued: “That innocent falsehoods are sometimes protected only to ensure access to the truth has been noted before . . . and it is well that it is repeated today.”

In the end, Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron clarified New York Times v. Sullivan by showing how the“actual malice” test of that case applied not just to individuals in public office but also individuals running for public office.