Libel

[lmcmillan33]

When can newspapers be sued for libel?

Someone I know is suggesting a newspaper could be sued for libel for citing a prosecutor as saying a defendant who pleaded guilty to tampering with records charges stole $6,000. Some are suggesting he didn't steal. He just falsified records. It never went to trial and it's not clear what really happened, but he did have to pay $6,000 restitution. If it is true that the defendant didn't actually steal any money, can the newspaper be held liable for accurately saying that the prosecutor said he stole money (simply quoting the prosecutor)?

 

[wicked]

Good luck proving that the newspaper intentionally did anything wrong.

Defamation Law Made Simple

 

[champ_kind]

It would need to be proven that the paper knew it was false and published it anyway to hurt the defendant

 

[Spartan Squad]

When can newspapers be sued for libel?

Someone I know is suggesting a newspaper could be sued for libel for citing a prosecutor as saying a defendant who pleaded guilty to tampering with records charges stole $6,000. Some are suggesting he didn't steal. He just falsified records. It never went to trial and it's not clear what really happened, but he did have to pay $6,000 restitution. If it is true that the defendant didn't actually steal any money, can the newspaper be held liable for accurately saying that the prosecutor said he stole money (simply quoting the prosecutor)?

Basically, it comes down to was the information false, did it actually injure the victim and is it reasonable that the newspaper should have known the information was false. Did the newspaper act in good faith in reporting information or was it sloppy in gathering facts that turned out to be false? In this case (just going on what you provided) the paper acted in good faith in getting information from a credible source that most outlets wouldn't question, so I'm guessing there isn't going to be a case here. The defendant could argue that the newspaper had access to the documents and had time to retrieve them to verify what the prosecutor told them, but that might be a little bit of a stretch. However, the defendant only needs to prove negligence on behalf of the paper.

This holds assuming the defendant was not a public figure in some way. The lowest burden of proof falls on those who are not in the public spotlight either as full fledged public figures (movie stars, the president, etc) or semi-public figures (local officials or minor celebrities). Someone deemed a public figure has to prove actual malice, meaning the reporting outlet intended to cause harm with the inaccurate reporting as opposed to being negligent in collecting the facts of the story.

The TL;DR version: The guy is going to have a helluva time proving the paper acted in a negligent manner by quoting a source with intimate knowledge of the case, but it isn't impossible for the paper to lose a libel suit in this case.

 

[CD Boogie]

Some are suggesting he didn't steal. He just falsified records
​

Good move to sue. Clear his good name and all.