#INMR MARVIN ZIMMERMAN TRIAL#
#INMR MARVIN ZIMMERMAN FREE#

We made this conclusion plain in McGhee v. Analyzing the publication, the Court stated: In Milkovich, the plaintiff brought a state court action for defamation contending an article authored by the defendant contained a false accusation that plaintiff had committed an act of perjury. 2695, the Court's own review of those cases led the Court to strongly imply that whether a publication is defaming is not to be determined from a single sentence, but rather from the content of a complete statement.

#INMR MARVIN ZIMMERMAN FREE#

We reach this conclusion from the direction taken by the Supreme Court in cases involving the conflict between the right of free speech and charges of defamation. 14 To determine whether a report is truthful, however, the court must view a publication in its entirety. Yet, we believe, in instances such as this case, where there is no evidence of duplicity behind truthful reports, Codd exonerates the person making the report.

McBride or any other defendant either accepted the accusation as true or embraced it as his own.Ĭodd does not establish a hardbound rule that truth is a complete defense to every liberty interest claim of the nature asserted by Mr. Fairly read in context, there is nothing contained in either publication which suggests Lt. Melton was accused by the FBI of having committed perjury, and the Oklahoma City Police Department was investigating that accusation. More importantly, the disclosure of the perjury accusation contained in The Daily Oklahoman story came in quotes from the spectral informants, not from Lt. 12 Second, the published stories themselves attribute disclosure of the defamatory reports to persons other than Lt. Unfortunately, the source of that information was not disclosed, but we do know the original disclosure of the accusation did not come from Lt. The evidence is undisputed that the first reporter who contacted him already knew about the FBI's accusations. McBride was not alone responsible for the publication. There are many controlling factors overlooked in the plaintiff's claim.

#INMR MARVIN ZIMMERMAN TRIAL#

While embracing the notion that deference is to be accorded to a trial court's finding of fact, the Court nonetheless stated, when findings are intertwined with legal principles, the appellate court's duty to correct errors in law is not inhibited by Rule 52(a). 2d 686 (1964), is that in cases raising First Amendment issues, an appellate court has an obligation to make an independent review of the record to insure against 'forbidden' intrusion on free expression. The second, as the Court noted in New York Times Co. The first is that the finding of malice is subject to the clearly erroneous test of Fed. In its review, the Court initially recognized the conflict of two established principles. Bose involved a claim of commercial disparagement in which the question of whether the defendant made a false statement with actual malice was an issue on appeal. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. We undertake this determination in accordance with the directives set out in Bose Corp. McBride to the Oklahoma City Times were stigmatizing. We now turn to the question whether the statements made by Lt.

Inmr marvin zimmerman