Suppose I defamed Lance Armstrong many years ago by saying he was using performance-enhancing drugs and was a cheater and Lance sued me for defamation and won $1,000,000. What happens now? In other words, what happens when my defamation statements have been “proven” (or at least there is potentially sufficient evidence to prove them) true?
Do I have any legal recourse that could result in overturning the original verdict or recouping some or all of the money awarded to Armstrong?
Depends on the case facts but generally, no. If a matter has attained finality, then Res Judicata applies and the original verdict stands. However, if say Armstrong went onto the stand and stated he did not use PEDs he could face perjury charges and be ordered as part of any punishment for that to be made to give restitution. Something similar happened to Jeffery Archer.
Also, several jurisdictions have their own rules wrt compensating victims of miscarriages of justice.
Yes, the question would be on what ground he won the original case. If perjury or failure to disclose documents in discovery, or some other such trickery were to come out, then there might be grounds to sue for restitution…
You must be able to sue if someone wins a case through demonstrated fraud, even if the authorities do not prosecute for perjury. (Aren’t depositions taken under oath?)
A party may obtain relief from a judgment for the “fraud… misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). Assuming you could prove Armstrong lied in your case, you might prevail under this rule.
Firstly, you do not “sue” for perjury, at most you can make a private complaint to a Court, crimes are against the state.
Secondly, the devil is in the details, specifically what position proceedings are at and the reasons for the original verdict (especially if not a Jury award). If the matter was under appeal, its possible that they would allow the new evidence in and reverse or vacate the original decision. If appeals had been exhausted or not pursued then, well it depends. You will not simply have a right (generally) to go back and get the matter set aside nor can you begin a new claim (res judicata alluded to above). To get a verdict set aside, most jurisdictions have very stringent requirement that the original verdict (this is not an appeal mind you) must be highly and unduly prejudicial, this is a very high standard to show, it goes beyond mere in-correctness and unfairness (which are what you see at appeals, at least first appeals). It is not at all clear that a court would do that, unless there is overwhelming evidence that Armstrong suppressed such evidence and that it would have led to a different decision. For all they know, you were talking out of you ass and got lucky.
Even if you cannot challenge the original verdict directly, you may have other avenues. Compensation ordered as a result of a criminal conviction is one. You might get separate causes of action, malicious prosecution/ abuse of process. Success chances for that would depend on the circumstances.
So the answer, it depends.
md2000 did not say you can sue for perjury, but for restitution, which is a claim in equity.
Ask Jeffrey Archer, he had to repay the damages (plus interest and costs) and served time for perjury and perverting the course of justice.
Liberace won a defamation lawsuit against the Daily Mirror for implying he was gay in 1956.
After he died of AIDS in 1987 (having settled a $113 million ‘palimony’ lawsuit from his chauffeur and alleged lover Scott Thorson), the Daily Mirror threatened that they were going to sue to recover the $22.000 they had to pay in damages. But they don’t seem to have actually followed through on this threat.
Suin =/ obtaining a favorable decree.
Maybe I’m misreading you, but appeals courts NEVER, and I’ll repeat that, NEVER entertain issues of fact.
I do not know which jurisdiction you are from, but from most of the ones I am familiar with, Appeals courts have the power to review and overturn factual findings.
US federal Court of Appeals do so
Factual findings can be overturned by English Appellate Courts as well,* BCCI v Akindale,* [2001] Ch 437, The Mouna [1991] 2 Lloyds Rep 221.
It is true that Appellate Courts rarely disturb factual issues and great deference is given to Trial Courts findings of fact and the standard of review for them is very high. But, as all law students are taught, lack of inclination is not lack of jurisdiction and in appropriate cases, factual issues can and are overturned.
BTW yes you were misreading me. An Appeals court can and does review the correctness of a decision, whether law was properly applied, whether there were any procedural irregularities.
As I understand it, the matter is long settled. So I imagine then, I agree with AK84 that the devil is in the details:
Exactly how did X prove he was drug-free in the original suit?
What evidence do you have and how strong is it that X was taking drugs in the time leading up to his winning the lawsuit? (I.e. the evidence now contradicts the finding)
What proof do you have that X was complicit in covering up or misleading the court as to the truth?
As I understand it, a lot of the Lance evidence is circumstantial - people around him made arrangements for others to drug up, people saw things like “pictures off the walls, meaning they were using picture hooks for blood bags”, “a team doctor arranged for me to get packages”, “everyone was doing it, and Lance ran the team, so no way it was not his idea or he was not involved”. Very few people actually testify “Lance took drugs in front of me”.
So you are still back to the question - if DM says LA was doing drugs and lost a lawsuit about it, how strong is the evidence?
If you are lucky, the statements in press by a witness in the trial directly contradict what they said under oath before.
If you are really lucky (now) someone steps forward and says “LA told me to lie” or you have undeniable(!!) evidence that LA himself perjured himself.
I would imagine to revisit the case, as AK84 says, “stringent” must be the criteria for evidence.
And, I assume, not just the court was mistaken but deliberately mislead?
AK84, do you actually practice law for a living? I’m just curious because first, what you linked to is NOT for lawyers it’s for laypeople who are trying to understand the appellate system. I’ve got that pretty much down, but thanks for the thought. Second, only a non-lawyer would think someone wouldn’t check a legal reference. Here is the entire quote you eviscerated.
Please note the criteria:
Must show
a. the trier of fact made a legal error (not a factual error but a legal error)
b. the error must have affected the decision made by the trier.
The record from the trier must be factually complete. This is what they mean by “makes its decision based on the record”.
a. red bold section - same idea, so - redundant.
So you see, by the time we get to your quote it’s pretty clear how grossly out of context it is, don’t you think?
By “review” they merely mean whatever can be gleaned from the record of the proceedings in lower court - and NOTHING more. And when they overturn on a so-called “factual” issue it is one which is “clearly erroneous.” That means that even from a dead, dry transcript it is painfully obvious that a particular “factual” determination was incorrect.
I was well aware of this when I made my previous statement. I did not then and do not now consider that an example of an appellate court entertaining a factual issue.
I am a lawyer thank you very much. I chose that because its complete and failry precise and also because at that time of posting my reply, I did not have access to Westlaw. And I cannot share your lack of confidence in non lawyer, most people would read references provided if they wished to rely
[QUOTE=allotrope]
Here is the entire quote you eviscerated.
Please note the criteria:
Must show
a. the trier of fact made a legal error (not a factual error but a legal error)
b. the error must have affected the decision made by the trier.
The record from the trier must be factually complete. This is what they mean by “makes its decision based on the record”.
a. red bold section - same idea, so - redundant.
So you see, by the time we get to your quote it’s pretty clear how grossly out of context it is, don’t you think?
By “review” they merely mean whatever can be gleaned from the record of the proceedings in lower court - and NOTHING more. And when they overturn on a so-called “factual” issue it is one which is “clearly erroneous.” That means that even from a dead, dry transcript it is painfully obvious that a particular “factual” determination was incorrect.
I was well aware of this when I made my previous statement. I did not then and do not now consider that an example of an appellate court entertaining a factual issue.
[/QUOTE]
With respect, you are mistaken, both in your comprehension of what I was trying to say and your deduction of what “entertaining a factual issue” is. As well as in your description of what clearly erroneous is.
A factual issue or more accurately factual finding is what a trial court makes after weighing the evidence.For instance say that " X is guilty of causing wilful injury as X hit Y with a rock and we have relied on CCTV footage of throwing said rock at a crowd Y was in during a riot". There are two findings here. A legal one; X is guilty of causing wilful injury and a factual one, X threw a rock at Y.
Typically on appeal, it is only the first one, the legal one, that X caused wilful injury which is assailed, but on appropriate occasions, the second, factual one will set it aside. To take one example when they might do so, say the CCTV footage only shows X throwing a rock at a crowd. An Appeals Court (presuming that in this hypothetical there is no additional evidence) can certainly say that the factual finding is wrong, the evidence only shows that X threw a rock not that it was at or even hit Y.
Now note, in this case a court is simply reviewing the record of the trial court, evidence adduced at trial. What you have highlighted refers to a Court of Appeal considering or hearing fresh evidence, i.e evidence which was not adduced at trial or heard by the trial court. That (and the procedures therein) are a completely separate issues.
Finally, clearly erroneous does not mean “clear from the dead, dry transcript”. It means a misreading of the evidence or an a conclusion which is not a reasonable one considering all the evidence. What you are describing is “error apparent on the face of the record.” a much stricter standard of review. That is for cases such as where all witnesses say that the getaway car was a Blue civic, while the Court decides that it was infact a Silver 7 series BMW.
Wow. I don’t even know where to start. So before I waste my time, I’ll just ask you this one simple question. It relates to the following quote.
What is the mechanism by which the appellate court obtains the new evidence?
You might want to know that I’ve handled or been and an associate on scores of appeals including a few before the US Supreme Court.
Maybe you could sue for unjust enrichment?
I am not a lawyer, but agree with AK, as the clearly erroneous rule is a different breed from an “Abuse of Discretion” error in law.
Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
The issue is whether or not appellate courts decide issues of fact. AK84 not only claims that this is the case but goes further to say that they actively ferret out new evidence when required.
I have asked him to explain what precise mechanism is used to accomplish this end. As it turns out, one does in fact exist. Unfortunately it is inconsistent with his thesis.
BTW, you were looking in the wrong procedural manual. Since we are discussing appellate procedure, if you wish to review what is accepted federal practice, then you should look here.
My post was based on your post to AK;
NEVER is INcorrect, that is all I am saying.
I am aware of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and they do NOT contradict Rule 52 as I quoted.
My posts have consistently focused on the one issue referenced. If for whatever reason you are discussing something else, I can’t really respond to that.