## Facts

- Joann Medina collapsed from a drug overdose at a Washington, D.C. apartment in December 1983 and died four days later; the medical examiner initially classified the death as a suicide and later changed it to “undetermined.”
- John B. Clyburn, Medina’s boyfriend, was present at the time of her collapse; emergency services were called and paramedics attempted resuscitation.
- In 1984, Drug Enforcement Administration agents interviewed Clyburn about the incident, including questions about possible drug sources and whether high-ranking city officials were present.
- Clyburn also spoke to a reporter about the incident and gave accounts that he later admitted were inaccurate, including statements about whether he called 911 and whether he was alone with Medina.
- In 1986, a newspaper published multiple articles and editorials about Medina’s death and investigations by law enforcement, including reporting on whether high-ranking officials attended the gathering.
- The articles depicted Clyburn as delaying “several critical hours” before calling for help, allegedly to allow other partygoers to leave.
- Clyburn, who had business relationships involving District government entities and officials, alleged the reporting was false and defamatory, particularly the delay narrative and insinuations of political protection.

## Issues

1. Whether Clyburn was a limited-purpose public figure regarding the public controversy surrounding Medina’s death and related investigations.
2. If Clyburn was a public figure, whether the evidence could permit a reasonable jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendants published with actual malice.

## Decision

- The court held Clyburn was a limited-purpose public figure as to the controversy reported in the articles.
- The court held Clyburn failed to produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the newspaper and its corporate affiliate.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure when he voluntarily injects himself into a specific public controversy in a manner inviting public attention and seeking to affect the controversy’s outcome or understanding.
- A limited-purpose public figure must prove actual malice to recover for defamation: publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
- At summary judgment, the court assesses whether the record could support an actual-malice finding by clear and convincing evidence.
- Reliance on law-enforcement sources and investigative materials, without evidence the publisher subjectively doubted the information or deliberately avoided contrary facts, does not establish actual malice.
- Evidence of hostility, sensationalism, negligence, or imperfect investigation, without proof of knowledge of falsity or serious subjective doubt, is insufficient to show actual malice.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Clyburn’s voluntary involvement in the controversy made him a limited-purpose public figure and that, on the summary-judgment record, he could not meet the constitutional requirement of proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, so defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


Clyburn v. News World Commc’ns, Inc., 903 F.2d 29 (D.C. Cir. 1990)