What can a person say in defending themself and denying a crime?

Factual Questions
1

The recent Trump verdicit raised this question. Please don’t focus on the person. I’m asking about legal guidelines. What can someone say in defending themself against an accusation?

Hypothetically, a public person is accused of sexual assault.

They are asked about the charges.

I didn’t do it.
She’s not my type and I didn’t do it.
I don’t know the person
I don’t remember this person

These statements have been aired many times. Do any cross the line for someone denying a crime?

I know there’s a photo with Trump and Carroll with a small group of people. That proves he met her. He may or may not know her well.

I know other statements were made that did harm the victim. 1.Crazy, 2.out for attention, 3.wants money etc. There’s no question that these things shouldn’t be said.

How strongly can someone publicly deny participating in a crime?

I see the problem. Denying participation implies that the accuser is wrong or not telling the truth.

But, a public figure has to protect their reputation.

It’s a interesting dilemma.

2

There’s nothing you can say, really. It’s a “When did you stop beating your wife?” sort of situation. Silence and talking both make one look complicit.

3

Of the four given in the OP, an accused could say any of them. An accused gets to mount their defence.

That doesn’t mean that all four are equally good defences.

I didn’t do it.. Pretty standard response to a criminal accusation.

She’s not my type and I didn’t do it. Not good at all. Leads to the counter-question: “Oh, so you do rape women who are your type?”

I don’t know the person Not bad, in the specific context of this case, where Carroll has said that they met and were joking around in the department store before he attacked her. Sub-set of #1.

I don’t remember this person Not so good. Too vague, not a denial.

3 and 4 do make you open to evidence showing you did socialise with her, as in the photo of Trump and Carroll that was introduced in evidence v

4

What’s wrong with implying the accuser is wrong, lying, or deranged?

The legal guidelines is the accused doesn’t have to say anything. In the USA it’s up to the prosecutor to prove their case in a court of law.

You are talking about defending themselves in the court of public opinion.

I’m not a PR person or anything, but I would think the best response is just to strongly state you didn’t do what you were accused of. Even better if you can provide evidence or witness that show you weren’t even there.

Nobody cares what your “type” is and that’s hardly an alibi.

Saying you “don’t know” or “don’t remember” the person can hurt your case if it can be shown that you did interact with the person, even tenuously.

But you can deny as strenuously as you like.

5

And I can tell you from experience just because I don’t remember someone doesn’t mean we didn’t hook up (consensually) :smiley:

6

It’s a great question and the answer likely turns on whether the defendant’s statements defame the reputation of the plaintiff/victim. If a defendant states essentially “I disagree with the verdict; I’m appealing it; I’m innocent; I didn’t do it,” they’re probably ok. Those statements focus on the process and the defendant’s guilt (or civil liability) and thus a re probably ok. However, once the defendant focuses on the plaintiff’s/victim’s integrity/reputation, there’s a liability risk.

At the risk of oversimplifying, it’s fine to insist you’re telling the truth, but not to insist someone else is lying.

7

Rules are different in court and out of court. I took the OPto be asking about defences that the defendant or accused can raise in court. In court, a defendant can call evidence to suggest the plaintiff is lying or suffers from a mental illness. An accused can also do that in a criminal case.

Whether those lines of defence are effective is another matter.

8

I had that same impression. Focus on your own innocence and don’t say anything about the accuser’s motives or character.

9

That’s way too limiting.

What if the accused believes that the main witness against them is lying? Maybe because they struck a deal with the police or prosecution? Or that the witness is lying to protect a family member? Or the witness is the one who actually did it?

Cutthroat defences are common in criminal cases.

It’s a real judgment call whether to advance a “liar” defence. Defence has to have some basis for it, otherwise it could bite the accused. But, that sort of judgment call is why you have a defence lawyer.

10

I think the best thing you can say is nothing. Lawyer up and don’t speak until he/she says to.

All the denials and throwing blame and trying to explain are just words to investigators.

When it counts, say in court, you testify if your defense says so.

Talking will not help, beforehand.

(And hope the defense has evidence)

11

I think it would depend on what really happened. If we’re talking about the seemingly much more common “he claims it was consensual / she claims it wasn’t” type of scenario, then it’s best to stick to the usual strategies.

If it’s something where the accusations are made up out of whole cloth, I’d go after the accusers with every available option. Forget about sitting there in court and refusing to testify. I’ll be up there on the stand laying everything out for the world to know. Forget about limiting my response to suing the accuser for slander or libel. I’d also go after their attorneys for abetting someone in making false accusations and campaign to have the state bar revoke their license. I’d go after media who reported the false accusations as if they were true. There would be no holds barred in the scenario of an accuser making things up out of whole cloth.

12

I’m not sure @aceplace57 has put his query too clearly but I suspect he is talking about a Trump-type scenario ie he is not talking about what a defendant can say in their defence. He is asking about what a defendant can say about their accuser outside court and not risk a defamation suit.

Really the simple answer is that the limitations are the same as they would be if the defendant was not accused of a crime involving their accuser. Statements to the effect that the crime didn’t occur or that events didn’t happen etc are not likely to be defamatory. Swingeing attacks on the accuser personally are.

13

If the charges are false, that’s what defamation lawsuits are for. “I am referring these claims to my attorney!”

If the charges are true, you destroyed your own reputation by committing sexual assault. You don’t get to lie about it now and justify those lies as defending your reputation.

14

[Moderating]
@aceplace57 , please clarify the question. Are you asking about statements made in court, and which ones would be permissible under the rules of a courtroom? Or are you asking about statements made outside of court, and which ones could be considered defamatory? It’s going to be very difficult to get factual answers if we don’t pin that down.

15

It’s probably worth remembering that any defense you offer – once it’s been inarguably impeached (eg, “I never met the woman,” but there you are with her in pictures; “not my type,” but then you mistake her for one of your wives to whom – it’s reasonable to assume – you were attracted) – a case could be made that you should no longer be offering that as a defense.

“Should” no longer…

16

You missed the whole point.

Trump already went to trial in a previous defamation case and lost. The jury determined that (as the judge told them in this trial) that the defendant “put his fingers in her vagina”.

This apparently created something (IANAL) called estoppel. Basically, this fact was decided. The court system, especially civil lawsuits, is not one where you can fight (lose) the same fight over and over until you find a jury that agrees with you. Once something has been decided, only the appeal court can overturn it - and only if they can show that either (a) serious error of law was made, or (b) the evidence was such that no reasonable jury would have concluded the result. (I’m sure a real lawyer can chime in to correct this.)

So what the judge was telling Trump and his team was that the previous trial had established as a legal factoid that Trump had committed sexual assault. Therefore, Trump could get on the stand, but he could not testify that he did not commit the act he was accused of.

Note too, the lawsuit was a defamation lawsuit over him maligning Carroll by claiming she was lying, not whether or not he had committed the act. So the judge basically said the circumstances were such that he could say what he wanted about the defamiation, but could not testify the act did not happen, or anything along those lines - i.e. could not claim she was lying, implying it never happened.

Essentially, it seems to me (again IANAL) he is limited to saying it did not really hurt her reputation, she did not suffer, etc. The lawyer was limited to asking if he stood by his deposition (which claimed she lied) which seems to be as close to saying so as they could get.

As for the general thrust of the OP’s question -
Most sexual assualt is not the “dragged into a dark alley” situation, it’s two people in a setting where the assault can happen, and the man claims she consented or it did not go that far. The line for criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, so the jury has to be really sure it happened.

There are plenty of defences. The presence of corrobrating evidence helps - kind of hard to deny something happened if there is semen in evdence with matching DNA. It may be hard to deny force if the victim is badly bruised. That she told someone about near that time helps, in those cases where the charges surface much later.

I suspect the problem is the jury - a defense lawyer typically tells his client not to testify, for good reason. The defense of “it never happened” or “she consented” would depend on the relative credibility of the witnesses. The defendant (or anyone) cannot say things that are provably false. Saying things that are less believeable will turn the judge or jury against that person and subtract credibility from other aspects of their testimony. Atttacking the other person can backfire, depnding on how it is phrased. But AFAIK, there is no limit other than the risk of perjury to what excuse one can use when the issue under litigation is whether it happened.

17

I should add that most jurisdictions have “Rape Shield Laws”. In the goode olde days, the typical rape trial would drag the woman;s character into question. “She slept with other people outside of wedlock, therefore she’s a slut and must have sent out signals indicating she consented”. It was more like the woman’s character was on trial, not the man. As a result, the rules have changed so that previous sexual history is not allowed as testimony. (Not sure how the previous interactions between the victim and defendant work in this).

So this is one avenue of testimony that the defendant cannot present as a defense.

18

It ain’t me, babe
No, no, no, it ain’t me, babe
It ain’t me you’re lookin’ for, babe

*standard refrain when not on call.

19

Brings to mind the story one airline pilot mentioned - apparently the mortal sin was to turn down an assignment request when dispatch called you. if they couldn’t find you, ok. So the phone rings at 3AM and he answers, and the dispatcher says “Is this Mister Smith?” He hands it to his wife and says loudly “it’s for your husband”. The next morning, dispatch never even mentioned they’d been calling him.

20

@md-2000 - yes, you’ve got it essentially correct here. Collateral estoppel prevents parties from relitigating issues that have been decided as long as certain requirements are met (the parties had full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, it was decided on the merits, the standard of proof was the same or higher, etc.). Though there are rare instances in which an issue can be relitigated outside of the appellate process (e.g. a writ of coram nobis), they are exceedingly rare.

ETA: That was in reply to @md-2000 not @Northern_Piper.