can i be sued for libel for forwarding criminal complaints to newspapers?

[nyflash]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? NJ.
I live in NJ and recently file criminal complaints against someone, who lives in CT, for sexual assault and simple assault. At this point, the complaints are at the county prosecutor's office, awaiting a decision as to whether to indict, dismiss, or remand to municipal court as lower charges. The defendant is a bond trader who seems to be well-respected in his field, and has been quoted in Forbes, the New York Times, etc. I would like to send copies of the complaints to these publications, as well as his local newspaper in CT, so that they know what kind of person he is, and that he has been accused of these crimes. Can i get in any legal trounble, such as libel, just for sending the newspapers the complaints?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? NJ.
I live in NJ and recently file criminal complaints against someone, who lives in CT, for sexual assault and simple assault. At this point, the complaints are at the county prosecutor's office, awaiting a decision as to whether to indict, dismiss, or remand to municipal court as lower charges. The defendant is a bond trader who seems to be well-respected in his field, and has been quoted in Forbes, the New York Times, etc. I would like to send copies of the complaints to these publications, as well as his local newspaper in CT, so that they know what kind of person he is, and that he has been accused of these crimes. Can i get in any legal trounble, such as libel, just for sending the newspapers the complaints?

Yes. You can be sued for libel and lose everything. STOP playing stupid games and wait until the District Attorney either files charges or has a conviction.

 

[dallas702]

Oh.....my.....God.

I can't believe you think this is not going to get you sued.

What are you smoking??

 

[JETX]

Can i get in any legal trounble, such as libel, just for sending the newspapers the complaints?

Contrary to the erroneous posts of others..... You can be sued for distributing those records (after all, anyone can sue almost anyone else over almost anything), HOWEVER, the fact of the criminal complaint is public record.... and you can release them to anyone you want. It is NOT defamation as long as what you say is the truth.

(Note: I used the term 'criminal charges' incorrectly and should have said 'criminal complaint'. My post has been corrected.... but the erroneous claims by others of defamation for the COMPLAINT are still not correct!! )

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I agree that the charges are public record. HOWEVER, because the poster FILED the charges and now places the charges before the public before the State has filed opens their motives up to examination by the court should the DA not file charges and the poster is sued.

That is why my admonition to wait until the DA makes their decision.

 

[JETX]

I agree that the charges are public record. HOWEVER, because the poster FILED the charges and now places the charges before the public before the State has filed opens their motives up to examination by the court should the DA not file charges and the poster is sued.

Not relevant. Once the complaint is filed, it becomes public record. There is no requirement for the state to file anything. Take a look at all the celebrity 'mug shots' over at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html

That is why my admonition to wait until the DA makes their decision.

If your 'admonition' is only PART of your post. Did you forget the erroneous part at: "Yes. You can be sued for libel and lose everything."??

 

[BelizeBreeze]

If your 'admonition' is only PART of your post. Did you forget the erroneous part at: "Yes. You can be sued for libel and lose everything."??

Nope, sure didn't. But then you agreed with that part when you said....

You can be sued for distributing those records (after all, anyone can sue almost anyone else over almost anything),

The problem with this post is that absent charges file against the subject of the complaint, and based on the expanded New York Times rule the poster CAN be sued.

Although the plaintif in such a suit would be required to prove the defendant had knowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard whether the statement was true or false.

Such 'knowledge' will be easier to prove if the District Attorney never files charges based on the complaint. Again, wait until the D.A. acts and then decide.



Oh, and by the way, no charges HAVE been filed. Only a complaint.

 

[JETX]

The problem with this post is that absent charges file against the subject of the complaint, and based on the expanded New York Times rule the poster CAN be sued.

First, there is no such thing as an 'expanded New York Times rule'. I think you are trying to use a generic reference to the case of New York Times Co. v Sullivan, supra, 376 US, at 270-280.
If so, you are misapplying the case as it has nothing to do with this matter. Read the case itself at:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html

or some excerpts (and applications) at: http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Laws/libel.htm

Although the plaintif in such a suit would be required to prove the defendant had knowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard whether the statement was true or false.

That is correct... and the fatal flaw to your 'argument'. If the charges were filed by the OP as alleged... and the defendant (the PUBLISHER... not the OP) then the PAPER might be subject to a claim if the PAPER new that the statement was false or reckless disregard. Simply, the paper can't publish that charges were filed if they weren't. Since, in this case, charges were filed (per the OP), then defamation did not occur.

Such 'knowledge' will be easier to prove if the District Attorney never files charges based on the complaint. Again, wait until the D.A. acts and then decide.

Again, you are incorrect in your assumption. Charges really has nothing to do with this. The issue should more correctly be referred to a a 'criminal complaint'. That is all the paper (and OP) is going to 'report'... that a criminal complaint has been filed.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

ALthough we could probably keep this up forever, I'm going to supplement my answer here because what this poster is contemplating is not only childish, but will probably not be published unless the forum where publication takes place is devoid of brain materials.

The point of "you could lose everything" posting to the exceedingly expensive proposition of defending a lawsuit based on slander and/or libel. These suits and reach easily into the 10's of thousands and more. Therefore, before pursuing such a game, ask yourself is it worth it even before the District Attorney has evaluated the case and made a determination as to it's validity.

Next, assuming that you DO decide to move forward without formal charges being filed by the DA's office, will you find a newspaper, magazine or other media outlet to 'publish' such allegations? Most unlikely.

At the minimum, it is encumbant upon the media to check the veracity of the facts and, as advised in their latest guide to libel and slander suits, even the Associated Press admonishes member organizations that such protections from libel and slander suits do not exist in a vaccuum.

"In short, there is no substitute for accuracy. But, of course, this does not mean that accurately reporting libelous assertions automatically absolves the journalist of culpability.
Accurate reporting will not prevent libel if there is no privilege, either the constitutional privilege or the fair report privilege."

Furthermore, the media, while enjoying such priviledge, is only protected under certain forums.

A fair and impartial report of judicial, legislative and other public and official proceedings is privileged — that is, not actionable for libel. But it is important to know, for instance, what constitutes judicial action. In many states there is no privilege to report the filing of the summons and complaint in a civil suit until there has been some judicial action.

New Jersey is such a state.

Also, while filed charges and arrests are public record, investigative reports and complaints are not. Therefore, such hold no priviledge.

 

[JETX]

ALthough we could probably keep this up forever, I'm going to supplement my answer here because what this poster is contemplating is not only childish, but will probably not be published unless the forum where publication takes place is devoid of brain materials.

You can't say that!!!
The FACT is... if this suspect is as well known as the OP claims.... AND if the complaints have in fact been filed.... it is more likely that the press will take an interest in it.

The point of "you could lose everything" posting to the exceedingly expensive proposition of defending a lawsuit based on slander and/or libel. These suits and reach easily into the 10's of thousands and more. Therefore, before pursuing such a game, ask yourself is it worth it even before the District Attorney has evaluated the case and made a determination as to it's validity.

I guess you are overlooking the FACT that, the actions described by the OP is NOT defamation at all. Since the OP's reporting of the TRUTH of criminal charge being filed is an absolute defense against the defamation claim.... the OP will not "lose everything".

Next, assuming that you DO decide to move forward without formal charges being filed by the DA's office, will you find a newspaper, magazine or other media outlet to 'publish' such allegations? Most unlikely.

Again..... incorrect in my opinion. The press/media feeds on this kind of story. What more do you need.... a prominent respected person, a victim and alleged crimes of sex and moral turpitude. Hell, movie scripts have been made of less.

At the minimum, it is encumbant upon the media to check the veracity of the facts and, as advised in their latest guide to libel and slander suits, even the Associated Press admonishes member organizations that such protections from libel and slander suits do not exist in a vaccuum.

Wow... kind of getting 'out there', huh??
All the press/media has to do is to contact the PIO at the police department (number is probably on speed dial!) and confirm the complaint.

Also, while filed charges and arrests are public record, investigative reports and complaints are not. Therefore, such hold no priviledge.

Sorry, also not true.
Though there are certain 'protected' portions of a criminal complaint (SSN, etc.) and virtually all investigation reports are restricted... where did you get the idea that criminal complaints are not public record??

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And again, NO CHARGES have been filed. Only a complaint for which priviledge is not present.

As to the New York Times test, I refer you to the Gertz decision in which the court said:

Those who, by reason of the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and success with which they seek the public's attention, are properly classed as public figures and those who hold governmental office may recover for injury to reputation only on clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

This standard administers an extremely powerful antidote to the inducement to media self-censorship of the commonlaw rule of strict liability for libel and slander. And it exacts a correspondingly high price from the victims of defamatory falsehood. Plainly many deserving plaintiffs, including some intentionally subjected to injury, will be unable to surmount the barrier of the New York Times test.

Despite this substantial abridgement of the state law right to compensation for wrongful hurt to one's reputation, the Court has concluded that the protection of the New York Times privilege should be available to publishers and broadcasters of defamatory falsehood concerning public officials and public figures.

Also, finding a publication to 'feed off' of this situation will be difficult at best. Since no Criminal Charges have yet to be filed, reporting such 'allegations', whether or not founded in a complaint, removes the protection of 'judicial action'. The COMPLAINT is being investigated. No charges (based solely on the current post) have been levied by either the CT or NJ authorities.

As to the speed dial comment, true enough. I had several officers on my speed dial when I owned my newspaper and several other state's attornneys. But the police have nothing whatsoever to do with this because, as the poster said, At this point, the complaints are at the county prosecutor's office, awaiting a decision as to whether to indict, dismiss, or remand to municipal court as lower charges.

Again, the police, unless the system in New Jersey is completely different than all other states, have nothing to do with this except as directed by the DA's office to investigate.

And finally, I never said a criminal complaint was protected and not public record. What I said was that unless JUDICAL ACTION has been taken, the priviledge standard from the New York Times case does not apply.

Also, whether this person, the subject of this complaint, is a public or private figure, rests with the interpretation of Gertz court and the implications of publication BEFORE judicial actions will be the determining factor in what a publication decides to do with the information.

The New York Times isn't going near this without clear and convincing evidence. And in light of their recent internal stuggles with liability, I doubt their legal council will allow it's publication without judicial action.

 

[JETX]

Though I can't disagree more with your original errors in statement... and your complete misapplication of the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling..... we are going to have to allow the unbiased readers of this thread determine the true facts.

Simply, if you can't understand the difference between the OP making the press/media aware of the criminal complaints (which is the issue here) and a very unlikely issue of defamation to a publisher.... I really don't have the time to argue this further.

In my opinion... you are arguing two completely separate issues... and wrong on both.
1) The OP would NOT be liable for defamation. And though possible to sue, will not "lose everything" as you claim.
2) The newspapers would not be liable for defamation for reports of the criminal complaints being filed.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Though I can't disagree more with your original errors in statement... and your complete misapplication of the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling..... we are going to have to allow the unbiased readers of this thread determine the true facts.

Simply, if you can't understand the difference between the OP making the press/media aware of the criminal complaints (which is the issue here) and a very unlikely issue of defamation to a publisher.... I really don't have the time to argue this further.

In my opinion... you are arguing two completely separate issues... and wrong on both.
1) The OP would NOT be liable for defamation. And though possible to sue, will not "lose everything" as you claim.
2) The newspapers would not be liable for defamation for reports of the criminal complaints being filed.

And I will continue to disagree on both counts and leave it at that.

 

[dallas702]

JETX;

In your view anyone could file charges (true, or not) and run to the media with them (or threaten to do so). If it were not for restraint through libel action everyone would be a target for ruin or blackmail. I think BB has it right. Without corraberation and evidence after a proper investigation by the DA's office it is just a malicious attempt to smear someone.

 

[JETX]

JETX;

In your view anyone could file charges (true, or not) and run to the media with them (or threaten to do so).

Where the hell did you get my saying that??? I didn't.
However, each of us has the RIGHT to file criminal charges or complaint. The police will then investigate and if the filing was INTENTIONALLY false, will likey file criminal charges against the complainant.

If it were not for restraint through libel action everyone would be a target for ruin or blackmail.

What the hell are you smoking???

I think BB has it right. Without corraberation and evidence after a proper investigation by the DA's office it is just a malicious attempt to smear someone.

Okay, so that makes two who don't understand the difference between criminal charges, publication of them... and defamation.
I will admit though.... yours is the 'scariest' of them... since you also don't seem to understand that every one of us has the right to file a VALID criminal complaint.