Agreed in the context of a criminal defense case but I understood the OP’s question to be about public statements, specifically when public denials cross the line into defamation. Hopefully @aceplace57 can confirm the context of the question.
I don’t understand where aceplace57 was going with the question either but saying something untrue, and provably untrue, is never a good strategy … even if it is not a lie. You may honestly not remember meeting her, but when someone shows a picture of you two talking at a party, uh-oh.
[Moderating again]
Regardless of which interpretation the OP meant, whether a statement is permitted is factual, but whether it’s prudent is not.
I was referring primarily about statements made outside court. There is a long waiting period between a charge and trial. That’s when most public statements are made.
The question also applies in court. For example if the defense questions the motives of the accuser.
I think questions about a person’s motives outside court could be defamatory? IIRC Trump implied Carroll was seeking attention and fame.
But, a person’s motives are a legitimate question for a defense during a trial? A person’s motives would be a legitimate question for witnesses?
Since I didn’t follow this trial that closely and just saw the snipet headline quotes, what evidence led to the jury finding him guilty? Was there any evidence? Was it as simple as she made a claim of something occurring and the jury found it “believable”?
“He claims he didn’t know her but a photo proved he did” seems rather thin since famous people take photos with others all the time.
Was there some other compelling evidence in this case?
The most recent trial was for defamation.
Carroll made these accusations several years ago and Trump said some pretty dismissive things.
There was also a civil trial for sexual assualt. Trump was found liable for sexual abuse.
I was unsure about a person’s ability to speak out after they were publicly accused of a crime.
The evidence included the plaintiff’s testimony, as well as that of friends to whom she disclosed the incident contemporaneously. In addition, the defendant did himself no favors by making statements (in public, in his deposition, and in court) that were contradictory or otherwise probative, such as misidentifying a photo of the plaintiff as one of his ex-wives after having claimed she “wasn’t his type,” and bragging to Billy Bush about engaging in precisely the type of conduct alleged by the plaintiff.
It gets complicated. Statements that might be a shield in one forum can be turned into a sword against a party in another forum. If I were advising a client who had been publicly accused of something like this, the discussion would generally be:
-
As your attorney, our discussions are privileged. And I need the facts to properly advise and defend you. So you need to tell me exactly what did or did not happen.
-
Understand that if this ends up in litigation (criminal or civil), your public statements may be admissible. And also understand there will be discovery, to include depositions of you and potential witnesses, as well document requests, interrogatories, etc. So, for example, if you claim you’ve never met this accuser and it later turns out you did, that will undermine your credibility. in court.
-
So if you did it (or not), I need to know that. I also need to know the details surrounding this, including prior interactions with the other party, your alibi (if any), discussions you’ve had with others, etc. Once we have all that, we can discuss strategy, i.e., how best to defend the accusations in court and in the court of public opinion.
All that said, even if the client insisted the accusation was false, most likely I would advise against public statements beyond perhaps a general denial. Specific statements pose both the risk of being picked apart for inconsistencies and risk a defamation suit by the accuser.
Generally speaking, “I didn’t do it” or “I’m innocent” probably don’t rise to the level of defamation. But incessantly bashing the accuser on social media pretty clearly does. The line is somewhere in between those two extremes but exactly where depends on the specifics of the situation. Legal advice is fundamentally risk management and there are rarely absolutes.
As always, none of this is legal advice, YMMV, etc.
Let’s suppose you are a public figure accused of some heinous act, and you wish to defend yourself before trial. Some thoughts:
-
As your (hypothetical) lawyer, I must advise you that anything you say before trial can become evidence at trial, so it’s to your advantage not to comment on the case. And you can blame me for that: “I’d love to tell you the whole truth of what happened, but my lawyers have advised me to wait until trial.”
-
From a PR standpoint, you can always refer to the trial (and not the facts of the trial) in your defense: “I look forward to being exonerated/airing the truth/telling my side in a court of law, where I have faith that justice will prevail.”
-
If you must comment on the litigation, be sure to couch it as your opinions about the case. “I don’t believe the victim will be able to prove their case”. “I don’t think that this is based in fact.”
-
The only thing definitive that you can say for sure concerns your memory. Nobody can establish that you are lying if you say you don’t remember something. “I don’t recall ever meeting her.” “I would remember such an encounter, and I don’t remember this happening.” (Although from a practical standpoint it doesn’t do any good to say you don’t remember something that obviously happened, like prior public encounters)
This is the key. In this situation, for example - denying it happened, is fine. The public is free to infer for example, that the accuser is a gold digger, or compulsive liar, or mistaken identity, or descending into dementia, or has memory issues due to hallucinations or wishful thinking, or is confusing person A and B who were prominent in the news at the time, or any interpretation innocent or mercenary. But, with a simple denial, the accused does not specifically attribute the accusation to deliberate malice. When he gets into specifics, he is specifically assigning deliberate malice to the accusation. So a simple denial does not impugn the accuser’s character. Attributing motives could - to the tune of millions or tens of millions.
The other point, as OJ Simpson found out the hard way, is that the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is much less onerous than a criminal trial - preponderance of evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt. But then, perhaps bankruptcy is less onerous than years in prison. So prudence suggests avoiding adding a civil trial to any accusation.
Also, IIRC, the statute of limitations had expired. Trump faced no criminal risk for his actions. Instead of commenting about the accusation, he could have let it slide and it would be under the bridge like the dozen or so other accusations. Instead, he chose to defame her, and when he lost the case, defame her again. The key here, as so many commentators said, is how much would he have to pay before he learns not to say bad things about her?
So the answer is - the key is exactly the details of what you say. Denying you did anything, fine. Denying you ever met her - well, then a photo surfaces showing you were incorrect with that, impugning your overall veracity. The more evidence that emerges contrary to the defendant’s claims, or that the defendant is in the habit of doing exactly that, the more likely public opinion will tend toward “…methinks [the defendant] doth protest too much…”
Sorry I misunderstood you, Aceplace, and took us down a detour.
IANAL, but let me offer up this one possible public-facing response:
“I look forward to being exonerated of these scurrilous, baseless allegations. I have no further comment at this time.”
I should have been more clear.
A lot of good information is coming from this theead. I appreciate everyones contributions.
They can say: “Prove it.” But they would be better off saying: “I would like to have my attorney present for questioning.”
It makes a big difference whether or not you are guilty.
If you are not guilty, stick to the truth.
If you are guilty, stick to what can be proved.
It is best not to attack the character or even delivery of what the victim (and we’ll assume this was someone’s victim, just maybe not yours) says, and stick to attacking the content.
But in both cases, stick also to Emily Post and Judith Martin. If you can’t say something nice, say it in a way that is unfailingly and exceedingly polite.
If you can honestly say “I did not do it,” say that. Don’t elaborate. The more details you add, the more likely you are to toss out something that is a minor error.
If you can’t honestly say “I didn’t do it,” say what you can say honestly.
and soforth.
AFAIK in actual legal proceedings and when you’re being questioned/arrested, your best bet is to say nothing at all, since as they’re so fond of pointing out on TV Miranda rights, “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”
If it’s not part of some sort of legal proceedings, then I personally would think that if you’re compelled to speak at all (which is probably a terrible idea), then maybe a flat out denial is where it would be at. “I didn’t do it.”, “I wasn’t even in town when that went down”, or whatever.
I feel like attacking the accuser could backfire, as it then makes you look like you’re trying to make them look bad in an attempt to deflect attention from yourself. At best, you could say that although you met her, you didn’t know her.
But of course all of this sort of has to have at least a toe in the kiddie pool of the truth. If you say that you didn’t know her, and it turns out that you did indeed know her, that looks worse to both a jury and public opinion than if you just didn’t say anything.
Several TV commentators discussing the Trump cases made the point - in the first defamation suit, Trump could have taken the stand and testified that the encounter never happened, he did not do what she said, etc. etc. He chose not to take the stand. As a result, the jury among other findings decided on the preponderance of evidence presented that he did indeed do what she said.
That is why he could not argue that he did not, in the second trial. Whether testifying at the first trial would have changed that? That’s an argument between Trump and his lawyers.
OTOH, if the first trial had failed to find that Ms Carroll was defamed, and that the act never happened, she could not have sued again and try to convince a second jury it did happen. Once something is decided, it’s decided.
The technical legal term for this doctrine is « You don’t get two bites at the apple. ». 
Nitpick/clarification: He would have been estopped from arguing he did not assault her in the subsequent case regardless of whether he testified in the former case. Once the jury in the first trial found he committed sexual assault, that could not be relitigated under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as we discussed earlier in the thread. A party’s election against testifying is not a condition precedent to estoppel. ETA: Not sure you meant to imply that it was, but just wanted to clarify.
The Court’s summary judgment order linked below discusses collateral estoppel beginning at page 11.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/214/carroll-v-trump/
Yes, I was just clarifying to reply to the OP question - in the first trial, he would not have been restrained from saying anything he wanted (barring provable perjury or relevance, obviously). He could claim it was a lie, that the plaintiff was a gold-digger, she was demented, that it was a vast left-wing conspiracy (assuming that last bit passed the relevance test), that it was an alien pod-person impersonating him, … and the plaintiff would then rebut that - preponderance of evidence.
But once the issue was decided in court the first time as it has been, he was precluded from testifying on the stand the second trial that it didn’t happen - even if he had chosen to testify that it did not, the first time.
Yep. You say “Not Guilty your Honor”.
“No comment” and “My lawyer will speak for me.”
Right, if you must say anything, make it comments like this.