In Your Face, Grace
The latest chapter in the saga of my favorite scavenger-journalist is taking shape. The family of the woman who took her own life only hours after appearing on Nancy Grace’s TV show is suing Grace and CNN. (Barebones) story here. (Oddly, as of this writing, cnn.com is not reporting this development!) To refresh your memory, a couple months ago, Grace coaxed Melinda Duckett, whose two-year-old son had gone missing, onto her show, promising Duckett that her motive was to create national awareness of the case. Once the cameras were rolling, Grace railroaded Duckett, clearly passing her own judgment based on her own barely veiled theory of what happened. After the foaming-at-the-mouth, fist-pounding tirade was taped, Duckett went home and committed suicide. Then CNN ran the episode anyway, with the classy touch of a ticker telling viewers about Duckett’s demise. (By the way, authorities are now saying they believe the boy is alive.)
Based on what I’ve read, which is admittedly limited, it looks like an IIED claim against Grace and the network. Part of the claim is that Grace misrepresented her intentions to a clearly emotionally distraught woman. I’m no expert on civil liability, but I’d say wrongful death would be a stretch, and there is no mention of it in what I’ve seen anyway. I’m guessing a quick juicy settlement will result (hooray for the looming specter of punitive damages), but maybe it could turn into a full-fledged free speech crusade. I’d welcome comments/predictions from readers more well-versed in tort liability than I.
Sometimes I love the law.
Based on what I’ve read, which is admittedly limited, it looks like an IIED claim against Grace and the network. Part of the claim is that Grace misrepresented her intentions to a clearly emotionally distraught woman. I’m no expert on civil liability, but I’d say wrongful death would be a stretch, and there is no mention of it in what I’ve seen anyway. I’m guessing a quick juicy settlement will result (hooray for the looming specter of punitive damages), but maybe it could turn into a full-fledged free speech crusade. I’d welcome comments/predictions from readers more well-versed in tort liability than I.
Sometimes I love the law.
Labels: Nancy Grace
posted by Mad.J.D. at 11:38 AM
11 Comments:
I agree with most of your take on this incident, but the news article does say that Melinda Duckett was subsequently identified as the prime suspect in the case. Surely Nancy won't be liable if she was right, will she? Is it enough that her suspicions have been validated by the police investigation to some degree, even if not ultimately correct?
"Although we agree with the magistrate judge that Grace 'played fast and loose' with her ethical duties, we cannot say that any false testimony clearly rose to the level of a due process violation." Stephens v. Hall, 407 F.3d 1195, 1206 (11th Cir. 2005).
Let's keep a list of spankdowns for Grace. I still cannot fathom how CNN keeps her on. She has absolutely no sense of morality. On the one end of the spectrum there are those serial killer types who have no regard for law and individual lives, and on the opposite end are the Nancy Grace's of the world. It's more like a circle actually. She just uses the state or her TV show to inflict harm onto others that she thinks deserve it.
3:34, there is a truth defense to libel, but not to IIED. Although, the truth of accusaitons may play into the "outrageousness" of the act.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/21/nancygrace.sued/index.html
Am I really witnessing Boalt students celebrating someone being sued for unpopular speech? Is it OK to assume that if, say, Ann Coulter committed suicide after a particularly vicious media attack, I could expect the same sentiments?
8:11,
I agree. No one really loves free speech. We really want everyone else to be free to express our own views. So support for free speech is always a weaker sentiment than our support for our own prejudices.
We caught a lucky break in that the drafters of the Bill of Rights imagined themselves to be free speech victims and that the courts have occasionally enforced our rights. We're actually out of step with almost all the world on this issue and we're always on the verge of slipping back into censorship mode.
As for Nancy, yes she's a vile, hate-spouting hypocrite -- just the kind of person that free speech rights are supposed to protect.
I was watching a Rutgers law prof on CNN yap about how Nancy Grace and CNN have a 1st Amendment defense. Can someone please explain to me how free speech is even an issue in an IIED civil suit?
A state's tort law is a governmental restriction on speech. Hence it must pass 1st Am muster. That's true not just for statutes and the tort of defamtion, but for all tort law, criminal law, any law of any type.
If this situation is one where a criminal suspect voluntarily came onto a nationally syndicated talk show, clearly she's at least a limited purpose public figure, right? Of course, I could be dead wrong as I was not given an H, let alone an HH, in Con law.
Ugh, crap. Looks like Hustler Mag. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) covers this. *crosses fingers* She wasn't a public figure, she wasn't a public figure.
I think the thing that distinguishes this from Hustler etc. is the fraud aspect. The private fraudulent speech that induced her onto the show is unlikely to be protected under the 1st amendment, anymore than you can sell Arnold Schwarzenegger a broker hummer telling him it works fine.
I agree with what this Anonymous person said:
"I think the thing that distinguishes this from Hustler etc. is the fraud aspect. The private fraudulent speech that induced her onto the show is unlikely to be protected under the 1st amendment, anymore than you can sell Arnold Schwarzenegger a broker hummer telling him it works fine."
Even still, Nancy's probably going to pull through legally unscathed. Pluh.
Post a Comment
<< Home