## Facts

- Yorie Von Kahl, a federal prisoner serving a life sentence for crimes connected to the killing of two U.S. Marshals, repeatedly litigated and publicly discussed his conviction.
- In 2005, Kahl filed a Supreme Court mandamus petition and attached an excerpt of the 1983 sentencing transcript that he had prepared and edited.
- The excerpt combined remarks by the sentencing judge and the prosecutor in a way that obscured who said what.
- A legal news publisher reported on the mandamus petition and, relying on Kahl’s excerpt, mistakenly attributed to the sentencing judge a statement that had been made by the prosecutor (describing Kahl as lacking contrition and suggesting his statements justified the killings).
- After a demand from Kahl’s counsel, the publisher issued a clarification that continued to attribute the statement to the judge; when later told the remark was the prosecutor’s, the publisher declined to issue another correction.
- Kahl sued for defamation.

## Issues

1. Whether, as a public or limited-purpose public figure, Kahl produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could find by clear and convincing proof that the publisher acted with actual malice.
2. Whether inaccuracies stemming from a good-faith interpretation of ambiguous source material, without evidence of subjective doubt, can defeat summary judgment in a defamation suit against a media defendant.
3. Whether a clarification and a later refusal to further retract can support an inference of actual malice as to the original publication.

## Decision

- The court reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment for the publisher.
- The court held that the record did not permit a reasonable jury to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the publisher on the defamation claims.

## Legal Principles

- A public-figure defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice: publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
- Reckless disregard requires evidence the defendant actually had serious doubts about truth or a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.
- Inaccuracy, even if avoidable or negligent, does not establish actual malice absent evidence of the defendant’s subjective doubt.
- An honest, reasonable misreading of confusing or ambiguous source material is insufficient to show actual malice.
- A failure to retract or correct, standing alone, does not establish actual malice regarding the original publication.
- At summary judgment, courts must assess whether the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find actual malice with convincing clarity.

## Conclusion

Because the publisher’s mistaken attribution resulted from a reasonable reading of an edited and confusing transcript excerpt and there was no evidence the publisher subjectively doubted its report, the First Amendment actual-malice standard required summary judgment for the publisher.


Kahl v. Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc., 856 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2017)