12-21-2023, 03:39 PM
(12-21-2023, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Defamation is hard to prove, but is it getting easier? Take the Depp/Heard case. A large number of people were surprised at the verdict as they believed the burden for proving defamation was not met. You have to prove the person lied, knew they were lying and did so with malicious intent. I didn't follow the Rudy trial so I can't speak to the evidence. In any event, my sole issue is not with the verdict, it's with the amount of damages awarded.
At no time have I made, or even insinuated, that the case should not have been tried. Even if the case was complete garbage they plaintiffs have a right to file suit and bring the case to court.
Yeah, you're gonna want to be careful with this line of thinking. It's literally no different than saying a criminal defendant should get a heavier sentence for not taking the plea deal they were offered and instead went to trial. They took a risk and loss after all, using your own words. Punishing someone for exercising their right to a fair trial is anathema to our system of justice.
No one can know, because none of us are privy to all the evidence. What we can do is compare past judgments awarded to people in other civil cases. When the numbers in this case absolutely dwarf settlements for people being killed by negligence, or outright murder, I don't think we need to know all the details of the Rudy case to comfortably call bullshit on the numbers awarded in this instance.
The X-factor in any jury trial is the jury. In the Guiliani case, the women made very sympathetic witnesses as ordinary Americans just doing their civic duty and were publically and cruelly attacked by a public official, which set off a firestorm of abuse from those who supported what he said.
The award will be appealed and likely knocked back or behind the scenes negotiations will result in a settlement
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
