## Facts

- James Perry was hired to kill Mildred Horn in Maryland; he murdered Horn, her eight-year-old quadriplegic son Trevor, and Trevor’s nurse, Janice Saunders.
- Investigators found in Perry’s possession *Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors*, published by Paladin Enterprises, Inc. (Paladin Press).
- *Hit Man* presented itself as a technical training manual for “independent contractors” committing murder for hire, including step-by-step guidance on planning, executing, and concealing killings and avoiding detection.
- The victims’ representatives filed wrongful-death and survival actions in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging Paladin aided and abetted the murders by publishing *Hit Man* (and initially also asserted other tort theories).
- In the litigation, Paladin stipulated, among other things, that it intended *Hit Man* to be used as a training manual for murderers; knew and intended that criminals would use it to commit murders; marketed it to that audience; and that the book’s instructions assisted Perry’s crimes.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment bars civil tort liability against a publisher for disseminating a how-to manual that intentionally provides detailed instruction to facilitate murder for hire and is used in an actual killing.
2. Whether, under Maryland law, the plaintiffs stated a viable civil claim for aiding and abetting (wrongful death) based on the publisher’s intentional and substantial assistance through publication.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Paladin and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the plaintiffs alleged a cognizable civil aiding-and-abetting claim under Maryland law, given Paladin’s stipulated intent and the asserted causal link between the book’s instructions and the murders.
- The court held the First Amendment did not immunize Paladin on this record because the publication, as stipulated, amounted to intentional assistance in criminal conduct rather than protected abstract advocacy.
- Certiorari was denied after the Fourth Circuit’s decision.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment protects abstract advocacy of lawlessness, but it does not protect speech that is intended to provide, and does provide, operational instruction that substantially assists criminal conduct.
- “Speech integral to criminal conduct” may fall outside First Amendment protection when the speaker/publisher purposefully facilitates crime through detailed guidance aimed at enabling unlawful acts.
- Civil aiding-and-abetting liability may be available under Maryland law when a defendant knowingly provides substantial assistance to the commission of a tort, including wrongful death resulting from intentional violence.
- A publisher’s intent and knowledge regarding criminal use, and evidence that the publication materially assisted the crime, can be legally decisive in distinguishing protected expression from actionable assistance.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit allowed wrongful-death plaintiffs to proceed against a publisher on an aiding-and-abetting theory where the publisher stipulated it intentionally marketed and disseminated a murder-for-hire manual to facilitate real killings and the manual’s detailed instructions allegedly assisted the murders; on those facts, the First Amendment did not bar civil liability.


Rice v. Paladin Enters., Inc., 128 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1997)