Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: the Deejay
You're not whistling Dixie there. Let's see, the vdams, LE, DA for starters. I will be "glued" to any and all SD websites to follow it, too.

Dw would have no case against the DA. Possibly against those whose affidavits that were used to get the indictment. Anything said in court cannot be the basis for a libel/defamation action. However the republishing of statements made in court can be the basis for a defamation/libel action if it not a 'fair' reporting of the testimony. In this case, DW would have a tough time prevailing in such an action. This is why prosecutors rarely talk to the press about the accused, other than to simply state that so-andso has been charged and pretty much leave the rest for the courtroom.

840 posted on 08/07/2002 5:30:04 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies ]


To: connectthedots
LE & the DA's office go hand in hand. They are connected like Siamese twins.
844 posted on 08/07/2002 5:33:23 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies ]

To: connectthedots
Dw would have no case against the DA.

Malicious prosecution. Slander and obstruction of justice. Directed leaks are not covered by the same protection as statements in court.

It seems obvious to me that the DA did collude and conspire with members of LE to deprive MR. Westerfield of his right to swift and fair trial.

856 posted on 08/07/2002 5:42:16 PM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson