I have read that in MD, a plaintiff can prevail in a civil case ONLY if he can demonstrate that the defendant(s) knew the taping to be illegal.
I cant imagine that Hannah or James knew about the law. Neither lives in MD, and both were kids when Linda Tripp had her troubles.
“I have read that in MD, a plaintiff can prevail in a civil case ONLY if he can demonstrate that the defendant(s) knew the taping to be illegal.”
I find that hard to believe, but I can’t demonstrate or prove why. Generally, ignorance of the law is excluded as an “out”, is it not? Some civil cases have causes of action which are “actionable”, which is different than “illegal”. But for example, consider “negligence”. Some forms of negligence (civil) rise to the level of fraud. (legal) Consider “fraud”. Some frauds are “constructive”, meaning, deliberate, and would likley be covered by applicable law. Some frauds are via negligence, eg; negligently failing to disclose known or should-be-known flaws in the quality of something or a piece of property being bought/sold. Some bundles of damages are ultimately judged to be partially the fault or doing of the plaintiff and partially the fault or doing of the defendant (respondent). In my thinking, that’s atypical of a “legal” cause of action, where the act(s) of one party are flat out in violation of enacted statutes deemed to be in force.
Anyway, IANAL, as I said, so I can’t provide an exhaustive or scholarly analysis. But there are lots of considerations in the subject case. Can the plaintiffs prove damages? If so, how would they measure them? Is it their burden to do so? (Almost certainly) Are they barred from seeking damages if they are suborning illegal activity? Some of these things are black letter law, not necessarily related to common sense.
Interesting, but more than a little unlikely. I reread the statute, and it provides for no such defense. It does shield someone from civil liability if it meets this part of the statue...
"(b) Defense.- A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this subtitle or under any other law."
I would be interested to read what you've read. Do you know if they cited a specific part of the Maryland Annotated Code, or a specific court ruling?