Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffliabilityappealsummary judgmenttrust
contractplaintiffattorney

Related Cases

Vince v. Wilson, 151 Vt. 425, 561 A.2d 103
View Case »
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler, 481 N.W.2d 120
View Case »
Melcher v. Beeler, 48 Colo. 233, 110 P. 181, 139 Am.St.Rep. 273
View Case »
McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 901 P.2d 841, 10 IER Cases 1793
View Case »
Braga v. Genlyte Group, Inc., 420 F.3d 35
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 128 F.3d 233, 25 Media L. Rep. 2441

Facts

On March 3, 1993, James Perry, following instructions from the book 'Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors,' murdered Mildred Horn, her son Trevor, and nurse Janice Saunders. Perry was hired by Mildred's ex-husband, Lawrence Horn, to commit the murders to access a trust fund. The book provided detailed instructions on how to commit the murders and cover them up, which Perry meticulously followed.

Perry, for example, followed many of the book's instructions on soliciting a client and arranging for a contract murder in his solicitation of and negotiation with Lawrence Horn.

Issue

Did the publisher of the 'hit man' instruction book aid and abet the murders, and is it protected under the First Amendment?

The parties agree that the sole issue to be decided by the Court … is whether the First Amendment is a complete defense, as a matter of law, to the civil action set forth in the plaintiffs' Complaint.

Rule

Speech that constitutes criminal aiding and abetting does not enjoy First Amendment protection, especially when the speech is intended to assist in the commission of a crime.

Because long-established caselaw provides that speech—even speech by the press—that constitutes criminal aiding and abetting does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.

Analysis

The court found that the publisher's actions and the content of the book were not merely abstract advocacy but were intended to assist in committing murder. The stipulations made by the publisher indicated knowledge and intent to provide assistance to criminals, which the court deemed sufficient to establish liability under Maryland law.

Notwithstanding Paladin's extraordinary stipulations that it not only knew that its instructions might be used by murderers, but that it actually intended to provide assistance to murderers and would-be murderers which would be used by them 'upon receipt.'

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the publisher, holding that the First Amendment does not bar civil liability for aiding and abetting criminal conduct.

We hold, as urged by the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, that the First Amendment does not pose a bar to a finding that Paladin is civilly liable as an aider and abetter of Perry's triple contract murder.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed because the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the publisher's intent and the applicability of First Amendment protections.

The plaintiffs prevailed because the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the publisher's intent and the applicability of First Amendment protections.

You must be