For a public figure to succeed in a defamation case, they must provide evidence of actual malice, which means demonstrating that the defendant made the defamatory statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This heightened standard is in place due to the First Amendment protections surrounding free speech, especially in matters involving public figures who voluntarily expose themselves to public scrutiny.
In contrast, private individuals only need to show negligence in defamation cases, meaning that they must establish that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the truth of the statements. This distinction reflects the greater ability of public figures to counter false statements and defend their reputation in the public arena compared to private individuals.
Additionally, while an admission from the defendant could strengthen the case for defamation, it is not a requirement for the public figure to succeed. Testimony from character witnesses may support the individual's claim, but it does not fulfill the legal threshold of proving actual malice, which is central to a public figure's defamation claim.