In Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), a newspaper published a story claiming that Daniel Connaughton, a candidate for municipal judge, had promised two sisters, Alice Thompson and Patsy Stephens, jobs and vacations in return for making allegations of corruption against the incumbent judge's court administrator. Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 660. The newspaper's only source for this story was Thompson. Before the newspaper published the story, Connaughton produced five witnesses who were present when Thompson claimed that Connaughton offered her and Stephens the gifts. All the witnesses denied Thompson's story. Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 691. Connaughton also produced a tape recording of the conversation in which Thompson accused the administrator of corruption. Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 683. The newspaper failed to listen to this recording even though it would have confirmed or denied many of Thompson's claims, such as her claims that Connaughton had selectively turned the recorder on and off during various parts of the interview and that her allegations of corruption against Xthe court administrator had come in response to leading questions from him. Id. More importantly, the newspaper failed to interview Stephens, the one person not associated with Connaughton who could have confirmed or denied Thompson's allegations against Connaughton. Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 691-92. According to the Court, the newspaper's failure to consult the two sources that could have objectively verified the story was evidence that the newspaper purposefully avoided learning facts that would have shown the story to be false. Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 692. Upholding a jury verdict against the newspaper, the Court held that this purposeful avoidance of the truth was enough to suggest that the newspaper doubted the story's accuracy, and hence was evidence of actual malice. Id. In Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 685-686, 105 L. Ed. 2d 562, 109 S. Ct. 2678 (1989), that evidence comprised the defendant's self-serving assertions regarding its motives and its belief in the truth of its statements. As long as the jury's credibility determinations are reasonable, that evidence is to be ignored. Next, undisputed facts should be identified. In Harte-Hanks, those facts included the denial of Thompson's allegations by Connaughton and others, and the improbability of those allegations given other facts and what the Supreme Court itself could tell from Thompson's taped interview was an obvious lack of credibility. Finally, a determination must be made whether the undisputed evidence along with any other evidence that the jury could have believed provides clear and convincing proof of actual malice. The United States Supreme Court held that appellate courts reviewing defamation cases "have a constitutional duty to 'exercise independent judgment and determine whether the record establishes actual malice with convincing clarity.'" Id. at 659. Further, the Court held that appellate courts "have a duty to 'independently decide whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to cross the constitutional threshold that bars the entry of any judgment that is not supported by clear and convincing proof of actual malice.'" Id. at 686. However, the Court stressed that it would not consider what facts the jury "could have" or "may have" found, but would consider only what facts the jury must have accepted or rejected in order to reach its verdict for the plaintiff. Id. at 689-690.