Filing Suit against Woman who Falsely Accused Someone Against Rape

[ivanl3]

Pennsylvania.

A woman accused a man of rape. Man was charged and eventually acquitted of all charges. Case fell apart for DA due to DNA absolving the accused as well as psychiatric reports regarding the accuser and her inability to keep her story consistent. Nonetheless, the man's reputation is severely damaged.

DA is unlikely to file perjury charges against accuser and this is the same department who took the original case to court.

The accused is meeting with lawyers discuss potential civil suits against the accuser, DA, police, etc..

His goals of filing suit are the following:

1. Cash (even if only having the woman's future earnings garnished)
2. Helping to repair his reputation by underscoring his innocence
3. Having the accusers name made public in a civil suit (of course it was not made public in criminal trial) -- even if the press does not officially connect the dots between the criminal case and civil suit, he believes most people will figure it out.

He is willing the pay an attorney a retainer to file suit. He will not demand the case be taken on contingency.

I am interested in opinions on the likelihood he achieves any of his goals as well as any other pertinent thoughts or suggestions.



JUST NOTICED MY TYPO IN THE SUBJECT LINE.....CANNOT EDIT....MODS -- Feel free to change "AGAINST" to "OF".

 

[HomeGuru]

Pennsylvania.

A woman accused a man of rape. Man was charged and eventually acquitted of all charges. Case fell apart for DA due to DNA absolving the accused as well as psychiatric reports regarding the accuser and her inability to keep her story consistent. Nonetheless, the man's reputation is severely damaged.

DA is unlikely to file perjury charges against accuser and this is the same department who took the original case to court.

The accused is meeting with lawyers discuss potential civil suits against the accuser, DA, police, etc..

His goals of filing suit are the following:

1. Cash (even if only having the woman's future earnings garnished)
2. Helping to repair his reputation by underscoring his innocence
3. Having the accusers name made public in a civil suit (of course it was not made public in criminal trial) -- even if the press does not officially connect the dots between the criminal case and civil suit, he believes most people will figure it out.

He is willing the pay an attorney a retainer to file suit. He will not demand the case be taken on contingency.

I am interested in opinions on the likelihood he achieves and of his goals as well as any other pertinent thoughts or suggestions.



JUST NOTICED TYPO IN MY SUBJECT LINE.....CANNOT EDIT....MODS -- Feel free to change "AGAINST" to "OF".

**A: what is the relationship between the man and the woman?

 

[Just Blue]

Pennsylvania.

A woman accused a man of rape. Man was charged and eventually acquitted of all charges. Case fell apart for DA due to DNA absolving the accused as well as psychiatric reports regarding the accuser and her inability to keep her story consistent. Nonetheless, the man's reputation is severely damaged.

DA is unlikely to file perjury charges against accuser and this is the same department who took the original case to court.

The accused is meeting with lawyers discuss potential civil suits against the accuser, DA, police, etc..

His goals of filing suit are the following:

1. Cash (even if only having the woman's future earnings garnished)
2. Helping to repair his reputation by underscoring his innocence
3. Having the accusers name made public in a civil suit (of course it was not made public in criminal trial) -- even if the press does not officially connect the dots between the criminal case and civil suit, he believes most people will figure it out.

He is willing the pay an attorney a retainer to file suit. He will not demand the case be taken on contingency.

I am interested in opinions on the likelihood he achieves any of his goals as well as any other pertinent thoughts or suggestions.



JUST NOTICED MY TYPO IN THE SUBJECT LINE.....CANNOT EDIT....MODS -- Feel free to change "AGAINST" to "OF".

Who are you in this situation? Or is this homework??

 

[quincy]

ivan, you may wish to check out the following thread created in 2010 that deals with a Pennsylvania situation similar in some respects to the one you describe here. While the facts presented are different, the law and the advice remain the same:

https://forum.freeadvice.com/libel-slander-defamation-88/false-accusation-perjury-520857.html

 

[ivanl3]

Who are you in this situation?

Concerned citizen. I know neither parties personally.

 

[ivanl3]

ivan, you may wish to check out the following thread created in 2010 that deals with a Pennsylvania situation similar in some respects to the one you describe here. While the facts presented are different, the law and the advice remain the same:

https://forum.freeadvice.com/libel-slander-defamation-88/false-accusation-perjury-520857.html

Good info from a criminal perspective, but still interested in a civil perspective.

Thanks.

 

[Just Blue]

Concerned citizen. I know neither parties personally.

Google

 

[ivanl3]

**A: what is the relationship between the man and the woman?

Met in a bar the night the alleged rape occurred (the one that in which he was acquitted). They never spoke before or after that night -- except (potentially) in the context of the subsequent legal proceedings.

 

[ivanl3]

Google

Uhhhhh....if you say so.

 

[quincy]

Uh, a defamation action would be a civil action, and it was from a "civil perspective" that the advice given in the other thread was offered.

What is reported in the original police complaint and what is presented in court filings and a court action is considered privileged. The comments, even if defamatory, cannot be used to support a defamation action. The police complaint (as I outlined in the thread I had you take a look at) can only be used in a defamation action if actual malice can be proved. Again (as I outlined in the thread I had you take a look at), actual malice is an extremely difficult element in defamation law to prove.

Check out the Scott case to see how difficult, time-consuming and costly these actions are - and how a defamation suit (or, in Scott's case, a Civil Rights action) does little to repair a damaged reputation. Only time and the failing memories of the public will do that.

Your friend's best course of action may be to look into getting the police record and the court records expunged.

 

[ivanl3]

Uh, a defamation action would be a civil action, and it was from a "civil perspective" that the advice given in the other thread was offered.

What was presented in the original police complaint and what was presented in the court filings and action is considered privileged. The comments, even if defamatory, cannot be used to support a defamation action. The police complaint (as I outlined in the thread I had you take a look at) can only be used in a defamation action if actual malice can be proved. Again (as I outlined in the thread I had you take a look at), actual malice is an extremely difficult element in defamation law to prove.

Check out the Scott case to see how difficult, time-consuming and costly these actions are - and how a defamation suit (or, in Scott's case, Civil Rights action) do little to repair a damaged reputation. Only time and the failing memories of the public will do that.

Got it. Thanks.

So assuming he is OK w/ the financial investment required to file a suit that he is unlikely to win, would the woman's identity in the civil suit be a matter of public record and accessible by the press?

 

[quincy]

If this guy is only interested in exposing the woman as a liar then, yes, he could file suit against her and her name could become part of a court record. The woman is, I am assuming, no longer claiming to be a rape victim? Or is she still asserting that she was raped and that she just identified the wrong person as rapist?

The media often have access to rape victims' names, by the way. It is only an ethical and moral decision made by the press to not publicly disclose these names that keeps the names from being published. If the media have obtained a police complaint where names have not been redacted, there is nothing that legally prevents them from publishing the names (well, I suppose there may be an odd court order that could).

The media also do not publish stories about every case that is filed. Whether they would have any interest in this fellow's case is a question mark, so he should not count on a lot of publicity should he file suit.

The fellow should also be aware, if he decides to file suit against this woman for falsely accusing him of rape, that what many people may remember about him and about the case is that rape was involved. They may not remember the "false accusation" part. In other words, a suit filed by him against his false accuser may be just as reputationally injurious to him as the original charges were. Something for him to keep in mind, at any rate.



As a note on the Austin Scott case referred to above and mentioned in the other thread: Scott's action was finally dismissed in July of this year, four years after the false rape accusations were made against him. In this four year time, his name has been before the public in connection to rape charges.

 

[ivanl3]

The woman is, I am assuming, no longer claiming to be a rape victim? Or is she still asserting that she was raped and that she just identified the wrong person as rapist?

Woman still claims he raped her, but the jury got it wrong.

 

[st-kitts]

Pennsylvania.

Case fell apart for DA due to DNA absolving the accused as well as psychiatric reports regarding the accuser and her inability to keep her story consistent. .

How did the DNA absolve him? DNA evidence could be used to cast doubt on her credibility, and lead to a not guilty verdict, but it doesn't prove innocence necessarily.

Did you mean his DNA was not found? Devil's advocate would be that he wore a condom.

Did you mean someone else's DNA was found? Devil's advocate would state that perhaps the victim ran into the arms of someone else for comfort and tried to erase/replace the memory of assault by having sexual relations with someone else. It doesn't mean that the assault didn't occur.

Finally, if the DNA was someone else's it could mean that the alleged victim was drunk (since a bar was referenced one might speculate alcohol was involved), was attacked and made a genuine report but was mistaken about the alleged attacker. The report would have been geuine and without malice even if she got it wrong.

Keep in mind that a not guilty verdict does not mean a person is not guilty, it means the state did not prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is a very high standard, a standard designed so that it is more likely a guilty person will walk free than an innocent person will be jailed. MANY guilty people receive not guilty verdicts.

There are cases where a judge can declare someone factually innnocent beyond the jury verdict of not guilty. There was a post on a CA case where this occurred because the person charged with the crime had absolute proof of being in another place when the crime allegedly occurred. Even in this case, where malice appeared obvioius, no action has been taken against the accuser.

I cannot speculate nor am I trying to imply your friend/acquaintance/self are guilty. Keep in mind though that the only people that know the truth are the woman and the accused. If you are a third party, you truly do not know whether the accused is guilty or innocent.

 

[quincy]

Suing a woman who has a psychiatric record, and who has already been found by a jury to have created a rape story against this man (or at least, where the man has been found not guilty of rape based on the evidence presented), seems a bit nonsensical to me. The costs stand to outweigh any benefits that could be realized - and this includes the costs to the guy's reputation, which will take a further battering in any new court action.

But, it is the guy's money and I can certainly understand his desire to "get back" at this woman for her false accusation. False accusations of this sort are especially harmful. The man just needs to understand that his reputation will not be repaired by a defamation suit, it could be additionally injured, and the damages he is awarded (if any) may not offset the monetary costs he incurs in pursuing an action.

He should speak with his attorney and go over all facts, both the pros and the cons of a suit, and then determine from this what his best course of action may be. Again, he should have all past police and court records expunged, as these will show up on background checks.