This isn’t a post about any specific case, I’m just using the most well known ( to most Americans) case to as an example. Say somebody confessed to killing Nichole Brown Sipson, complete with a video his accomplice made, showing the murder, and he swore that O.J. was not involved. What would happen to the civil case where O.J. was found liable? Would it automatically be reversed? Could O.J. sue anybody for damages (loss of reputation, loss of revenue, the interest on the money the court ordered him to pay, etc.)? If so, who?
As I said before, this is more a general question then about a specific case. In addition, I am not looking for actual legal advice, nor will I take any post as legal advice and neither should anybody else.
This is actually a good question and has me wondering now. What are the rules on civil lawsuits? The only thing I can think of is mentioned by Cecil. A while back a group of women sued a breast implant company (Merck?) for damage caused by silicone breast implants. Since, it is known there is no damage caused by them. But the women get to keep the money. Oh, on the other hand…you hear cases where people lie to insurance companies about injuries and get a certain amount of money back. After the fact, an investigator for the insurance company gets proof they lied (videotape), and gets all of their money back (or what is left of it).
I am sure this is a question for a lawyer, but I wanted it thrown to the top so I can get an answer, too.
Nope, the civil judgment against OJ would stand. Whether OJ would have a civil claim against the real wrongdoer is an interesting question. My gut says no, not unless the real wrongdoer deliberately framed OJ.
The outcome of the wrongful death suit pretty much excludes any chance that Simpon might be innocent. Certainly, the requirements for evidence is not as strict as that of criminal cases, but you still need a good amount of it.
Civil cases in the USA (as far as I, a non-lawyer, understand them) are not matters of guilt nor innocence, although that can contribute to the outcome.
Now, OJ might theoretically be able to sue for recovery on the basis of the new evidence, but I’m no lawyer.
IANAL, but I recall reading that in some jurisdictions, it is not necessary for a statement to be false in order for it to be actionable under libel/slander/defamation laws. It is necessary to show only that the statement was damaging to one’s reputation or character. Given Liberace’s romantic image and the social attitudes towards homosexuality at the time, he may well have been justified in bringing forth this suit. (Now, if he actually testified in court that he wasn’t gay, that’s another matter entirely.)
He was directly asked in court whether he ever had homosexual relations, and he denied it. Interestingly, while he spent several pages of his autobiography recounting this civil suit he brought, and repeating courtoom colloquies, he somehow “omitted” that question and answer.
IANAL, so I can’t comment on what the law is, but my view of it.
Imagine a case someone is found liable for in wrongful death case. Then after the decision, the victim shows up alive. Does this void the verdict?
In my view, it should not. The decision only meant given the evidence presented within the trial, it was more likely than not the person was responsible for the alleged act. If a different set of evidence was presented, perhaps a different outcome.
Ignoring cases where the evidence is doctored or illegally withheld, there would be no end to legal proceedings if the truth of the matter could be constantly reviewed by adding, deleting or amending evidence to be considered in the decision.
CurtC, you are correct of course. Despite the incorrect phrasing, I still feel it’s a valid question, but thanks for the correction.
Unfortunately, robby, the above scenario is what I believe would happen also. I’m hoping that the legal answer is the same as the common sense answer, but it seems that isn’t often the case in today’s Justice System.
If the issue was fully litigated in the unappealed first case and a final judgment on the merits was issued, it would likely be res judicata, “a thing ajudicated.” Generally, the res judicata consequences of a final unappealed judgment aren’t changed by the fact that the judgment may have been wrong. See Federated Dep’t Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981). There’s no general principle in law or equity that would allow O.J. to relitigate the issue as a matter of justice or public policy, although I suppose it’s always possible in an extreme case like this the supreme court of the state could create a judicial exception.
A man defaults on several high-dollar credit card accounts, then declares bankruptcy. A week after the bankruptcy is a fait accompli and has run its course through the court system, the same man wins Powerball. Can any of his old creditors come after him for payment?
That would surprise me, because I’ve always heard from my lawyer friends the quote “Truth is an absolute defense against libel.” Meaning that if it is true, stating/writing it can never be slander/libel.
And I’ve always heard defamation defined as “a false statement that casts your reputation into disrepute”. Note: “false statement” – true statements are thus by definition not defamatory.
I suppose he could charge the newspaper with a violation of privacy case, but I’ve heard that it is hard for public figures who try hard to promote publicity for themselves to then claim privacy violations.
This might be different under British law, but that would surprise me.
Under U.S. libel law, a statement must meet three standards to qualify as slander or libel:
It was false.
Those who made the statement knew it was false, or were negligent in trying to determine its veracity.
The false statement caused harm.
If I said that you are a Martian, the statement would qualify under standards one and two, but not three. No sensible person would think it was true.
If I heard from two different sources who claimed, falsely, that they had first-hand knowledge that you had robbed a bank, and I contacted you for verification or denial, but you did not respond, that statement would qualify under standards one and three, but not two.
If I repeated a rumor that you had been convicted of assault and battery, did not check if it was true, but it turns out it was true, that statement would qualify under standards two and three, but not one.
Under U.S. libel law, a statement must meet three standards to qualify as slander or libel:
It was false.
Those who made the statement knew it was false, or were negligent in trying to determine its veracity.
The false statement caused harm.
If I said that you are a Martian, the statement would qualify under standards one and two, but not three. No sensible person would think it was true.
If I heard from two different sources who claimed, falsely, that they had first-hand knowledge that you had robbed a bank, and I contacted you for verification or denial, but you did not respond, that statement would qualify under standards one and three, but not two.
If I repeated a rumor that you had been convicted of assault and battery, did not check if it was true, but it turns out it was true, that statement would qualify under standards two and three, but not one.