D Marie:
No, I think he scraped it off the side of the highway. 
But if CrankyAsAnOldMan is correct, then I must say I have at least some understanding of the guy’s need to validate his attractiveness to a wide range of women.
Chaim Mattis Keller
ArchiveGuy, Connie DID ask Condit if he loved Chandra, he replied that he didn’t love her, and that she hadn’t loved him. He also answered that Chandra wasn’t pregnant. He also answered that he didn’t think he should have to take an FBI lie detector when he had already hired an expert to take one, and that he had passed.
It might have been good if she had just asked the follow up questions to the contradictory statements he made IN the interview. He wasn’t sure she had taken the train to California, but reacted immediately to 'give money towards a reward’when Mrs. Levy called him about Chandra’s absence. Why wouldn’t he naturally have replied ‘well, she may just have been delayed, have you called the train stations?’
He also said that he hadn’t expected to speak to Chandra again for a few days, and yet he called her a day or two later. WHY? Why did he say that, when it had already been shown he’d never called her. PLUS, she wouldn’t have been home, she’d have been on the train. She had a cell phone, and yet he said he called her home phone. WHY?
Lawyer-type checking in here, but I’ve never represented anyone in a defamation matter. I just follow well-publicized cases for my own entertainment.
Several points here:
First, as to damages - she doesn’t have to prove actual monetary damages, just damage to reputation - the accusation that she lies would (I believe) meet the definition of libel per se:
If it’s libel per se, she doesn’t have to prove monetary damanges - and I would bet money that Condit’s statement effectively accuses her either of an “immoral act” or a crime. In any event, I suspect she’s got a good enough argument to keep a judge from automatically demanding proof of actual financial loss. Instead, she’ll put a dollar figure to her general damages, just as plaintiffs do for “pain and suffering” or “loss of consortium.”
Second, as to malice - malice is really only at issue where the plaintiff is a “public figure.” For mere mortals, all you have to show is that the statement was untrue and that the defendant in some way published/repeated/broadcast it.
Under the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan (click on "376 U.S. 254), plaintiffs who are “public officials” must prove malice, and the bar is quite high. Lately, it seems that “public officials” has extended to include “public figures,” but I’m not sure of how the contours of that would work. I find the idea that Ms. Smith is a “public figure” frightening, since (at least arguably) she came forward primarily as part of a criminal investigation, albeit a highly publicized one.
- As to proof of the truth of her statement - this is less clear. She might try to argue that Condit’s statement was made with such reckless disregard for the truth, and with such knowledge of the effect his statement would have on her reputation, that her ability to prove the truth of her own claim doesn’t matter. Might work, espeically if she’s able to provide some circumstantial evidence.
More likely, she’ll be able to produce things like cell phone records, notes, gifts, and the knowledge of her friends to bolster her claim. She wouldn’t want to reveal those now, because her attorney would want to use a threatened public disclosure of same to try to force Condit to back down.
ArchiveGuy, I didn’t say Connie Chung did a perfect interview (she didn’t, although IMHO it was a pretty good one.) I said, and I still insist, that a journalist has to start with the most basic, most obvious questions, even if they insult the intelligence of half the audience. It’s partly a CYA thing and partly a way to gauge how straight or shifty the interviewee is.
And while the technique is usually pro forma, it does occasionally produce a surprise, like in 1980 when Ted Kennedy was running for President. Roger Mudd asked him what should have been the all-time softball question, “Why do you want to be President?” Amazingly, Kennedy couldn’t come up with a coherent reply.
OxyMoron, Anne Marie Smith is taking advantage of a California law that allows an individual to directly petition a grand jury to bring a criminal indictment – in this case, suborning perjury. Since she’s not bringing suit herself, she doesn’t have to prove damages.
The only two things that can destroy a politician’s career are being caught with a dead girl or a live boy. Anything else can be explained away.
I don’t remember where I heard this, but it definitely applies to Condit (but not apparently to Barney Frank).
Oh, California law.
We know what that means.
And maybe she’ll get one of those illustrious California jurists, like the Hon. Lance Ito.
** OxyMoron ** I appreciate you writing what you did, though it might be different state to state. I will, at least, STOP, thinking someone has no case if they can’t prove damages.
Wouldn’t ‘mitigating circumstances’ include the fact that what kind of character could she have since she knowingly had an affair with a married man?? SHE was the one who began damaging her own reputation. Or is that only considered in small claims court?
Actually, as a general rule that’s not supposed to be considered in any court, although in small claims it’s more likely because the procedure isn’t as strict.
Courts go to some lengths to ensure that merely because a witness or party is less-than-pristine, that person’s statements are given equal weight. In civil cases, the big exception is when the “character” problem impugns the person’s truthfulness. (There are other exceptions as well, but they’re pretty narrow.) Is adultery itself considered relevant to a person’s truthfulness? Generally not - although it’s possible that in some jurisdictions it is. (I feel reasonably comfortable in assuming that California isn’t one of them ;).) A more nuanced allegation would be that she’s lying about his conduct in order to preserve her own reputation - and a court may well be open to that line of reasoning.
(The other big exception is in the sentencing phase of criminal trial, when character can be a big part of deciding whether the defendant is likely to continue to be danger to the community.)
Standard disclaimer: I’m admitted only in New York, where I am not a litigator. What I’ve said is worth exactly what it cost you to read it :).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OxyMoron *
**
Oh come on now!! Your expertise has to be worth more than just $4.95!!! 