malice, and (3) Mark sustained damages. 5 . The timing issue Mark's counsel emphasized in oral argument occasionally comes up in the context of public figures, which we do not consider here. The Supreme Court has explicitly declined to address the question "whether or when an individual who was once a public figure may lose that status by the passage of time." Wolston v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 443 U.S. 157, 166 & n. 7, 99 S.Ct. 2701, 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979). Circuit courts addressing the issue, however, have concluded that "once a person becomes a public figure in connection with a particular controversy, that person remains a public figure thereafter for purposes of later commentary or treatment of that controversy." Street v. National Broad. Co., 645 F.2d 1227, 1234-35 (6th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d
holding that court did not err in failing to exclude witness who had remained in courtroom while another witness testified despite having been put under the rule holding a restriction on crossexamination of prosecuting witness in rape case not error in absence of offer of proof in accordance with as 1245045 holding that the trial court did not commit constitutional error by excluding evidence about the pri or rape of the tenyearold victim when she was five years old because the defendant did not proffer evidence that the prior rape was similar to the current incident holding that the trial court did not err in admitting juvenile records where counsel stated in his opening statement that the witness had no record when in actuality the witness had nine juvenile adjudications for burglary holding that the main witness in the famous scottsboro nine rape case remained a public figure forty years later