I have not really heard what Nancy Grace has had to say exactly except that she has been screeching about how the jury screwed up etc for about a week now. Could members of the jury sue Nancy Grace for defamation or anything like that? (I know that CAN sue, I just mean would it be a viable lawsuit?)
What she saying? The First Amendment protects opinion. This is why in newpapers you have letter to the editor and they are clearly marked as such. This way there is no mistaking the letter from news the paper reports
You can call someone a jerk or such all you like, cause jerk is clearly an opinion. And you are entitled to your opinon.
Facts are also protected by US law. For virtually everything the truth is a defense. If it’s true, you can say it. That’s the US law, other countries have law where using the truth maliciously is not lawful.
Are lists of jurors publicly posted? Would anyone who wasn’t in the courtroom even know specifically to whom the phrase “those incompetent jurors” refers to?
No. I think three things would lead to viable legal action.
-
They could sue for defamation per se if Grace alleged the jurors had committed a crime.
-
They could sue for slander if they could prove that Grace alleged facts about them that were not true and that Grace knew were not true. I don’t know whether she’s done either of those things.
-
If the judge sealed the juror’s name and she reports them, the judge could hold her in contempt. I don;t think the jurors themselves could pursue a claim in such a case.
They can’t sue for Grace expressing her opinions about them, no matter what her opinions are.
You can still get sued (and lose) as this guy did for $60,000 despite everything he wrote being true.
A juror might be in for a thrill ride if she or he sues Nancy Grace. I believe I am correct when I say that Grace has never lost a case in her legal career.
She claims on her book jacket to have had a perfect record in felony prosecutions, but I’d like to see a cite from another source to back that up. Some sources have pointed to other embellishments in her book.
It’s clear that at least some of Grace’s convictions were thrown out by the appeals courts because of her own prosecutorial misconduct.
She also settled at least one civil suit (the Melinda Ducket case)that arose from her time as a TV host.
I just wanted to say I think Nancy Grace is a loathsome creature.
Most prosecutors win almost all the time. They bargain cases they are afraid they might lose, and take the slam dunk cases to trial. It would not be a stretch to find prosecutors with undefeated records. I don’t know anything about Grace’s career, the cases she prosecuted, or how long she did it. Moreover, winning as a prosecutor tells us nothing about how she’d fare as a defendant in a civil suit. She wouldn’t be the lawyer in such a circumstance (although that would be much more entertaining to watch).
But like others have said, jurors probably should not try bring suit against her for whatever trashing she is engaging in.
She doesn’t let the truth get in the way of a good story on her TV show. It doesn’t come as a big surprise she didn’t let it get in the way as a corrupt prosecutor either.
As to the OP, sure you can sue someone for almost anything. It is doubtful they would win unless she actually libeled them by name - making false statements that question their integrity, etc. or incited her viewers to harm them.
Along with everything else, when a case is already in the public eye it is most definitely open to severe criticism. Hell, SNL could do a sketch about the jurors being idiots and unless they revealed their actual names or said something genuinely libelous like one of them was a pedophile or something it still constitutes free speech.
If Nancy Grace specifically picked out an obscure case and deliberately made it common knowledge for her own benefit, you might have a (weak) case of slander or libel.
But generally, amongst judges The First Amendment trumps all. You really, REALLY have to go above & beyond criticism to even have a chance.
Get outta here!
That’s why I said, virtually and not absolutely, there have been a few other cases like this, and on appeal most get thrown out. But not all have, this guy can certainly appeal.
The courts are not my primary beat as a reporter, but I’ve been around enough to know that few prosecutors bat 1.000 for long if they are trying meaty cases.
Her bio says: “Nancy Grace initially came to television from the Atlanta Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, where she served more than a decade as a special prosecutor of felony cases involving murder, rape, child molestation and arson”
If, as her book suggests, she tried over 100 such cases without losing a single one, that would be an unusual and remarkable record.
Indeed but it will cost that guy a lot of money to defend himself. Will it be cheaper to pay up or fight? I dunno…guess it depends on how much his attorneys charge.
Personally I am shocked a judge didn’t set aside the verdict (although not sure when and where a judge can do so…perhaps the judge’s hands were tied here).
I don’t know about defamation of character, but what about incitement to violence?
One of the jurors from the case has apparently taken early retirement from her job rather than return, because she’s so frightened of what her coworkers will say or do to her.
I realize it’s not that Nancy Grace is actually advocating violent treatment of any of the jurors (at least that I’ve heard), but if she is constantly belittling them, saying they betrayed the victim and our society blahbiddyblahblah, I think a reasonable argument could be made that one of the foreseeable consequences of casting the jurors as villains is that some of her viewers may decide to harass or even harm a juror.
This has been argued here before. There have been people claiming that TV pundits create an atmosphere that causes some people already on the edge to tip over and commit violence.
The judicial system, AFAIK, will not ever prosecute such a case.
Incitement to violence is not protected speech but it generally (as I understand it) needs to take the form of, “My minions…go kill those people over there!”
Obviously that rarely happens. Merely saying, “Those people are the cause of all our problems and the world would be better without them.” does not pass muster. I think you are free to say that in the US. If some whacko listens to you it isn’t your fault.
I mentioned that in an earlier post and it is a valid point. But only if, as noted by Whack-a-Mole, it is a clear incitement to violence. e.g. “I want you all to get out there, get in your cars, find this woman, and make sure no trial on earth ever ends so unfairly again” would land her in jail not just civil court. To say “I wish she were dead” is a much more ambiguous case, and to just say “This moron let a murderer get away Scott free” doesn’t even come close.
It isn’t reasonable to limit what she can say (much as I wish it were) just because there is a chance some random lunatic might act illegally because of it. If it could be proven (or persuasively argued) that the climate of anger already present made it irresponsible to broadcast any negative coverage then there would be a lot of people in line behind Nancy Grace awaiting trial as well.
Anyone can sue anyone over just about anything. But winning? And having it stand up on appeal? That’s something else again.
Any prosecutor who won every case she ever tried was only taking absolute dead-bang certain cases to trial and pleading out everything else. That’s not necessarily pursuing justice, which is a prosecutor’s ethical duty.
And also disregarding the law and evidence when prosecuting cases could have created a lopsided ratio of convictions.
The Supreme Court of Georgia (from the Wiki cite posted upthread):
I think she missed that day of prosecutor school.