In light of the district attorneys failure to disclose the DNA results to the defense and the subsequent dismissal of charges, do the players have the right to sue for malicious proscution and should they sue the state or the defendant?
2006-12-22 09:01:08 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They certainly do have the right, and from what I've heard about this case, it sounds like they have a reasonable chance of winning such a lawsuit. It's tough to get your good name back, even when it has been smeared falsely. People remember accusations more than they remember acquittals or dropped charges.
I think they should sue, not only to try to restore their good name but to punish the government for the malicious prosecution.
2006-12-22 09:12:09 · answer #1 · answered by FrederickS 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They didn't dismiss all of the charges--just the Rape b/c the alleged victim can't say whether or not she was actually penetrated. As for the exculpatory evidence, that's now to their advantage, If the defense had found out about it after a trial, we'd have a different story.
If the players end up with all charges dismissed, then they could sue the State (who will cry immunity) and the prosecutor as an individual. There are standards that have to be met to show malicious prosecution--and generally that's reserved for private cases that people end up winning, like in civil suits.
2006-12-22 09:14:29 · answer #2 · answered by kathylouisehall 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, chances are that they cannot sue. Virtually every state gives people immunity for this type of behavior. You typically cannot be held liable for anything you say, true or not, in court, to the police, or to the legislature.
Think of it from a public policy perspective. California Civil Code section 47, for instance, makes any statements made in relation with a judicial or legislative proceeding absolutely privileged.
The reason behind the privilege is simple and compelling; we want to ensure that nobody has any fear of reporting a crime. While it is sad when someone is falsely accused, we don't want to open the door to more lawsuits by having everybody claim that they were falsely accused.
I'm a criminal lawyer in California and I'll tell you -- every person is innocent. Nobody ever committed the crime for which they are accused. Imagine giving every single criminal an open door to file a lawsuit against their accuser. It would virtually guarantee that the vast majority of people would stop reporting crimes out of fear of civil liability.
So, chances are the Duke players do not have a civil remedy against their accuser. This is not to say that the accuser goes away free. She may be subject to criminal charges for perjury and abuse of process.
But filing a civil suit against her? Probably not.
As for filing against the D.A. - no way. D.A.'s enjoy immunity from lawsuits. They can't be held civilly liable for doing their job, no matter how poorly.
2006-12-22 09:33:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not only can they sue but they also can and should pressure a district attorney into prosecuting this female nut for a hate crime. There is evidence she did this because they are white. I am wondering where the so-called civil rights leader jesse jackson is to defend these young men from the injustice that has been done to them? If you ever see jesse jackson, do me a favor and give that ***** a smack on the back of the head for me.
2006-12-22 09:34:51 · answer #4 · answered by legal citizen 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jesse/Al have been precise there in direction of the sh.t whilst the Duke debacle replaced into warm and heavy. whilst the digicam crews and information media flunkies have been thick like flies. Getting their exceptionally faces as lots air time as conceivable. The obtrusive project with those effective supporters of equivalent rights is their failure to confess whilst they are incorrect. i detect it particularly remarkable that there are nevertheless human beings available that supply them any credibility. they'd desire to be laughed at the place ever they go. i'm no longer a non secular person, yet i think of those meant reverends have become their rewards right here in the worldwide, because of the fact they understand they'll burn in the hereafter.
2016-12-15 06:23:41 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From what I heard on the news, only the rape charge has been dropped. There is also a kidnapping, and additional sexual assault charge still on the table...
2006-12-22 09:09:39 · answer #6 · answered by purplepartygirrl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because not ALL the charges have been dropped. They are still up for kidnapping.
2006-12-22 09:08:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not, they got away with rape.
What are they going to sue for the panties?
2006-12-22 09:10:13 · answer #8 · answered by ARM 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they can sue all they want but you can't bleed a turnip
2006-12-22 09:14:49 · answer #9 · answered by curious_One 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
THEY SHOULD SUE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH SLANDERING THEIR NAME. THE STRIPPER SHOULD BE SHACKLED AND ARRESTED FOR LYING TO THE D.A.
2006-12-22 09:03:39 · answer #10 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋