Um, is this legal?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Don't you have different standards for proof in civil cases though?

ETA: I realize this seems particularly dumb in the context of your legal back and forth, but what I mean is: Isn't it conceivable that a prosecutor could decline to try to indict knowing he/she had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and yet, this guy would be unable to prove libel because he was unable to prove that her claims were false and damaging.

What would the legal standard for proof be? Just a willingness of the jury to believe her over him or what?

Possibly. I would think that a prosecutor, in this case, however, might still indict (which isn't hard to do if there's at lest some evidence) so that they can try to get some sort of a plea bargain with the alleged rapist so that there might be some sort of penalty. That's what I'd do in a case like this.

Even if it was probation or some slap on the wrist, this would be something on his record.

Maybe you're right though.

I'm really not 100% sure what the burden of proof is here. I *think* it's preponderance of the evidence (i.e., if the jury 51% believes she is telling the truth, she wins). It could very well be a greater burden though. I'd have to look at a book that's in the other room right now.. and I'm just not going to do that