Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
She's not going to be able to prove the truth of this thing. If she complained to a prosecutor, they apparently didn't even have enough to indict the guy. If that didn't happen, I really doubt that there's any actual proof out there. Her word isn't good enough. It is her burden to prove that what she accuses this guy of is true.
|
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?
Threaded Mode
