How Come Nancy Grace Has Never Been Sued For Slander??

[bj81]

Nancy Grace is being sued currently, over the suicide of a woman Nancy Grace interviewed, the interview of which played on CNN immediately after the death. The family of the woman blames Nancy Grace's harsh treatment of this woman for the suicide. The suit, however, is not for defamation.

And I agree, applecruncher. Turning the channel is an easy solution, but one people don't seem to consider much. They would much rather try to ban what appears on TV based on their own likes and dislikes, than to simply allow others the freedom to view what they want. The same goes for people trying to ban books they find objectionable. It's a puzzling human trait.

Yes I could turn the channel but what if I get suspected or falsely accused of a crime and it is one that Grace is covering and she influences my jury to convict me??

 

[cbg]

And what if you don't? The whole world isn't about you - a concept I'm sure you'll have difficulty accepting.

Paranoid much?

 

[quincy]

bj81 -

First, you would have to trust in our system of justice, which would find you innocent if you are, indeed, innocent - and you would have to trust that those who believed you guilty before hearing any evidence against you would not be on your jury.

Second, there is no reason why you cannot sue Nancy Grace - and you would probably find an attorney willing to take you on as a client, possibly on a contingency, if Nancy Grace can be shown to have spouted false facts or made defamatory comments.

I am sure you remember the O.J. Simpson trial - there has never been so much press given a suspect in a crime. O.J. was convicted in many a press article for the murders of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. And yet, even with all of the negative press he received, and all of the "evidence" of his guilt presented to the public, he was still found innocent by a jury, purportedly based on the evidence they heard during the trial and not on what they read in the papers or heard on TV prior to the trial.

I am not sure that Nancy Grace has as much influence as you fear. I believe most jurors take their role seriously, and will not convict someone wrongly (although they may find someone innocent wrongly ).

 

[bj81]

bj81 -

First, you would have to trust in our system of justice, which would find you innocent if you are, indeed, innocent - and you would have to trust that those who believed you guilty before hearing any evidence against you would not be on your jury.

Second, there is no reason why you cannot sue Nancy Grace - and you would probably find an attorney willing to take you on as a client, possibly on a contingency, if Nancy Grace can be shown to have spouted false facts or made defamatory comments.

I am sure you remember the O.J. Simpson trial - there has never been so much press given a suspect in a crime. O.J. was convicted in many a press article for the murders of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. And yet, even with all of the negative press he received, and all of the "evidence" of his guilt presented to the public, he was still found innocent by a jury, purportedly based on the evidence they heard during the trial and not on what they read in the papers or heard on TV prior to the trial.

I am not sure that Nancy Grace has as much influence as you fear. I believe most jurors take their role seriously, and will not convict someone wrongly (although they may find someone innocent wrongly ).

OJ Simpson was found innocent by a mostly black jury, they say if the jury was mostly white he would of been toast.

 

[mommyof4]

So now you are saying that juries are racist and sexist?

You're not really helping yourself, here.

 

[bj81]

So now you are saying that juries are racist and sexist?

You're not really helping yourself, here.

Jurors are often made up of people from all walks of life, so yes, I believe jurors can be racist and sexist.

 

[seniorjudge]

Everyone say buh-bye to the bj....

 

[quincy]

O.J. Simpson's jury was made up of 9 Blacks, 2 Whites and 1 Hispanic, which was a reflection of, not the jury pool (which was 40% white and 28% black), but of the area where the trial was held - Los Angeles. The Los Angeles location influenced the composition of the jury that was seated, whereas had the trial been held in Santa Monica (a suggested site), the composition of the jury would probably have been mostly white.

It is true that of those who thought O.J. guilty, based on news reports, most were white, while those who thought he was not guilty were mostly black.

In selecting a jury, both the prosecution and the defense WANT a prejudiced jury - but one prejudiced in their favor. Potential jurors cannot be excluded, however, based solely on their race or sex, and the prosecution had a hard time eliminating blacks and women from the jury, as O.J.'s attorneys challenged each elimination as being based on race or sex. The prosecution would want an all white, all male jury in a trial like the Simpson trial, while the defense would want an all black, all female jury. Women, according to studies, make better jurors for the defense. And studies were done showing that blacks were more sympathetic to O.J.

All of the potential jurors had to fill out a 294 question questionnaire. Excluded from the jury pool were people who had been in contact with the media or those who had read extensively about the murder. As it wound up, no one on the jury regularly read a newspaper although 8 regularly watched tabloid TV. Nine of the jurors thought O.J. was less likely to be a killer because he was a professional athlete.

So, yes bj81, jurors reflect the area and its population, and jurors can be racist and sexist, just like the rest of the population in our country.

It is amazing our system works as well as it does.