PITTSBURGH – A panel of three Superior Court judges has ruled
that The Bradford Era did not act with “actual malice” in reporting
two stories involving a local police officer.

Bradford City Police officer Hiel Bartlett, through his attorney
Jarett Smith of Coudersport, sued Bradford Publishing Inc., doing
business as The Era, publisher John Satterwhite, managing editor
Marty Wilder and former reporter Anne Holliday in 2001 for
libel.

On Friday, judges Maureen Lally-Green, Zoran Popovich and
Justine Johnson ruled that McKean County President Judge John
Cleland did not err when he granted a motion for summary judgment
in favor of The Era in April 2004.

At that time, Cleland stated that Bartlett – a public figure –
had not proven The Era acted with “actual malice” in regards to two
articles written by Holliday in February 2001.

In his appeal, Bartlett asserted that Cleland should not have
granted the summary judgment because he did not view the “evidence
in a light most favorable” to Bartlett and also failed to consider
evidence proving actual malice.

Bartlett’s lawsuit was precipitated by two articles – the first
article dealt with issues Corydon Township residents were
experiencing with Bartlett and the second one was the result of a
township meeting where people asked for Bartlett’s resignation.

According to the court’s memorandum, the first article contained
statements from two sources who had incidents with Bartlett. One
source was a “successful business owner and is respected in the
community” while the other did not want to be identified because he
” feared retaliation from Bartlett.”

Four statements of question in the meeting article were said in
a public forum.

While, as Cleland said originally, the statements by the
individuals should have been authenticated, it did not establish
actual malice.

“As the trial court properly found, Bartlett, as a public
figure, must prove that The Bradford Era acted with actual malice,”
the court’s memorandum said.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, actual malice “can be
established either by proving the publication was made with the
knowledge of its falsity of its contents or with reckless disregard
of whether it was false or not.”

“Bartlett has failed to put forth any evidence, circumstantial
or otherwise, that The Bradford Era, and specifically Holliday,
acted with actual malice,” the judges said. “The majority of
Bartlett’s arguments are an attack on Holliday’s alleged failure to
properly investigate and properly question her sources before
publishing the story … those arguments are without merit.”

Although The Era could have done more investigation, Bartlett’s
argument did not meet the standard for actual malice, the court
ruled.

“The fact that The Bradford Era could have employed a higher
degree of journalistic responsibility does not constitute actual
malice,” the judges wrote.

Bartlett also argued that Holliday’s inconsistent testimony on
how many times she spoke to one of her sources was indicative of
actual malice.

“… even if, as Bartlett alleges, Holliday lied about how well
she knew one of her sources at her deposition, it is not material
to the issue of actual malice and summary judgment in favor of The
Bradford Era was proper.

“(It) is not material to whether she acted with actual malice
when she wrote the article a year earlier.”

Bartlett, who alleged the statements caused him great financial
loss after he was laid off indefinitely from the Corydon Township
police force and was assigned a desk position at the city police
department, sought damages exceeding $100,000.

A hearing was held before the judges in Superior Court in
Pittsburgh on Aug. 31.