March 8, 2007

Law Notes

This has been a pet peeve of mine for a while; now I’ve found some actual authority for it.

A plaintiff in a defamation case bears the burden of proving that the defamatory statements are false – the burden is not on the defendant to prove that the statements are true. So, the phrase “truth is a defense” is a misstatement of the law. Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (Feb. 28, 2007) 2007 DJDAR 2875, 2877, citing CACI 1700. The case deals with the burden of proof a plaintiff must meet against an anti-SLAPP motion challenging a defamation claim – the plaintiff must prove falsity by a preponderance standard even if the plaintiff is a public figure. (Malice must still be proven by clear and convincing evidence, but the element of falsity has a lower burden of proof). The CACI is useful and persuasive, but it is not legal authority on its own.

I’ve nowhere else to lodge this particular morsel of information so I may as well post it here so I know I can find it later when I need it. By the time I do need it, it will likely be in the official case reporters. I would expect, given that the ACLU represents the appellant here, that the appellant will at least petition the California Supreme Court for further review; I would also expect that the Supremes will deny review since the decision does conform with what I understand to be the existing law. But, you never know, and if they grant review, I’ll have to wait a while before I can cite this case.

The point is, truth is not a defense to defamation. If the defendant can prove the truth of the statements, that negates the plaintiff’s prima facie case. That’s different than an affirmative defense.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thoughtful, insightful, or informative comments are always welcome. Advertising will be deleted permanently. TL reserves the right to delete comments in his sole discretion (but rarely does so other than for advertising).