LOL. That tickled me.
Seriously, though, I'm scratching my head, can any of our legal experts weigh in here? What would be the grounds for this defamation suit? I haven't seen one media outlet come right out and say she's a murderer or an accomplice, yep, plenty of inferring, suggesting, surmising based on her demeanour, actions and words in the wake of Cooper's death but no more than there is in any other controversial case. I'm stunned by this latest development.
I see no false statements of any kind. In order to be liable for defamation, the following needs to be met:
1. a false statement about the plaintiff;
2. communication of the statement to a third party in the absence of a special privilege to do so;
3. fault of the defendant amounting at least to negligence; and
4. harm to the plaintiff, unless the statement amounts to per se defamation. See Smith v. Stewart, 660 S.E.2d 822, 828 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
So, she would have to prove that what was reported about her was false - she didn't make the statements attributed to her, she didn't act in the manner reported, etc.
She would then have to prove that there was no special privilege to communicate the statement to a third party.
Then, she would have to show that the defendant (the media), was at least negligent in their publication of false statements about her. Such as they failed to adhere to even minimum fact checking.
Finally, she'd have to prove harm occurred to her (damages) unless the statements published constituted per se defamation.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/georgia-defamation-law
Possible defenses or roadblocks to such a suit are as follows:
1. The statements are likely true - that she appeared stoic, what she said to LE, to her mother, to the daycare, to her husband, at the funeral.
2. She may constitute a public figure (like a celebrity). Who is a public figure is not always clear. But many in the legal community consider crime suspects to be involuntary public figures:
http://works.bepress.com/daniel_pesciotta/1/ That's important because if the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must show more than negligence - they must show actual malicious intent on the part of the defendant when they published the false statement.
3. The media may hold privileges that are complete defenses to a defamation suit:
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 51 - TORTS
CHAPTER 5 - LIBEL AND SLANDER
§ 51-5-7 - Privileged communications
The following communications are deemed privileged:
(1) Statements made in good faith in the performance of a public duty;
(2) Statements made in good faith in the performance of a legal or moral private duty;
(3) Statements made with a good faith intent on the part of the speaker to protect his or her interest in a matter in which it is concerned;
(4) Statements made in good faith as part of an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern, as defined in subsection (c) of Code Section 9-11-11.1;
(5) Fair and honest reports of the proceedings of legislative or judicial bodies;
(6) Fair and honest reports of court proceedings;
(7) Comments of counsel, fairly made, on the circumstances of a case in which he or she is involved and on the conduct of the parties in connection therewith;
(8) Truthful reports of information received from any arresting officer or police authorities; and
(9) Comments upon the acts of public men or public women in their public capacity and with reference thereto.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-51/chapter-5/51-5-7
4. The statements may not be defamation per se. Defamation per se includes: Statements falsely accusing the plaintiff of sexual immorality, false accusations of criminal behavior, or false statements of the plaintiff having a contagious disease such as HIV/AIDS are grounds for a case of Defamation
Per Se. http://kellywarnerlaw.com/georgia-defamation-laws/
I have not seen one media report actually accuse LH of criminal behavior. Thus, the statements published about her are unlikely to be defamation per se and that means LH would have to prove actual damages - i.e., that she lost money as a result of the false statements published.
So, LH has a long road ahead of her in succeeding on a defamation suit. The media generally have teams of lawyers lined up just for these kinds of cases.
I think it's just a threat from her lawyers who are trying to do damage control and to stop the negative press about their client. This is about PR.
Lin wood is a great lawyer. Most likely he would take contingency for a suit like that. And no one said he agreed to it yet. It is just a meeting.
It is highly unlikely that Lin Wood or any other well known, good attorney would take this case on a contingency basis. Contingency cases are usually relegated to personal injury cases and civil cases that have a high probability of high payouts. I don;t see that here at all: "Common sorts of cases that lawyers will take on a contingency fee are those involving personal injuries, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, malpractice, and other cases in which there are likely to be substantial recoveries."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-how-do-i-find-lawyer-28292.html
Everyone needs a lawyer when they have legal issues or complications. Innocent people especially.
Well, it would seem odd for an attorney to argue against that, but...
Yes, lawyers are helpful and often necessary when people have legal issues. But IMO and experience, grieving, innocent parents are most unlikely to retain lawyers when their child dies or goes missing, especially right away. Even when they are being treated as a POI or a suspect:
"I never considered not cooperating and I never considered hiring a lawyer." "We bring these children into this world
and it's our duty then to do whatever we can to protect them and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement
right down the line." "It's only when you hire a lawyer that it becomes apparent, if not obvious that you are hiding something."
Marc Klaas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuu_IfYOX7U
"I know, when Adam was missing, I never left the Hollywood Police Department until they found his body, for two weeks. I said, And why wouldn't you go in and cooperate with the police? I said, When Adam was missing that day, they took Revay (ph) and I in separate rooms for 12 hours, cross-examining us, because you have to eliminate the immediate family or friends. And we took polygraphs repeatedly, two polygraphs each, to dispel any rumor and innuendo about this."
John Walsh (who did not hire an attorney).
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/22/lkl.00.html
