Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Many states award statutory damages (at least a set minimum figure) for libel per se, which this is.
|
Ah, did not know this - thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
"Malice" for libel doesn't carry the same meaning as it does in criminal law. Malice is almost like a mens rea requirement that the libel be done with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. That doesn't really matter here though because this guy is not a public figure. To prove libel, he only has to show that the statement accused him of a crime. If she can't prove the truth of what she alleged, game over.
|
Yeah, honestly I was just replying to her assertion more than the actual requirements of the crime - and, to nerd up the thread a little more, my point was that it would be insanely easy to insert the notion of "malice" (whether through legal or common definition) into the mind of the jury, which would in turn drive damages through correlative anger, so I was really thinking as the jury guy. If the money is there, this seems like a no-brainer case to take.