I'm going to assume that you know what the "Covington kids" case is, about the viral video involving the Covington Catholic kids and a native American, and the shitstorm that ensued, and skip summarizing here what happened. The parents of the affected kids sued, among others, Washington Post for defamation, because they published defamatory reports about the case with complete disregard to journalistic integrity and the identity of those affected.
The Washington Post lawyers submitted a "motion to dismiss" to the judge, in this case one Senior District Judge William O. Bertelsman, who granted the motion.
Why is this most probably a case of the judge bypassing proper legal procedure and, possibly illegally, dismissing this case without letting the victims defend their case?
In the United States legal system, a "motion to dismiss" is submitted and should be granted in cases where no trial is necessary because the lawsuit is frivolous or inactionable.
One example of this is if someone sued someone else of murder, but there has been no murder. There is no murder victim, there are no incident reports by the police, and the alleged victim of the murder either doesn't exist or is actually alive and well. There's nothing to prosecute the accused of. Clearly this is just a completely frivolous (and ridiculous) lawsuit, so it makes no sense to proceed to trial, and thus it can be dismissed.
Another example is when a crime might actually have been committed, but it's not sanctionable even if the trial would find the accused guilty of it. Most typically this is the case when the crime is too old, and the statute of limitations kicking in. In other words, the alleged crime was made too long ago, and even if it were determined to have happened it would not result in any sort of punishment. In this case, too, the defending attorney can simply submit a motion to dismiss for this reason, and it will probably be granted (unless the opposing attorney can argue why the statute of limitations doesn't apply.)
In this case, however, there is a clear accusation of a crime based on an actual event, on the actual actions of the news organization, and the lawsuit was relevant in that if the accused were found guilty, there would be a legal punishment. This is a quite clear case where the veracity of the accusations should be determined by both parties presenting their case in a court trial.
In fact, in his argument why he's granting the motion to dismiss, the judge is actually making a judgment based on the claims and what he sees as the facts of the case... without allowing the prosecution to present their case. Neither the prosecution nor the defendants have been heard, they haven't been given any opportunity to present their arguments and cross-examine witnesses, or anything. The judge jumped directly to the judgment of the case, acting effectively as the defense attorney to the defendants (ie. the Washington Post), making their case for them and judging based on that, and not even hearing any counter-arguments from the prosecution.
This is not a motion to dismiss. This is effectively a judgment. A judgment that, effectively, finds the defendants not guilty. (And yes, this means that they cannot be prosecuted for the same crime again. This is one of the side effects of a motion to dismiss.)
While I'm not a lawyer, I strongly believe that the judge acted completely improperly in this case, bypassing proper procedure, perhaps even breaking the law himself in doing so. This case was not handled properly by the book, and instead the judge incorrectly used the motion to dismiss as a shortcut to jump to the final verdict without even having a trial and without hearing any arguments. This is not the proper way for a judge to enact law and pass judgment. This might even be illegal.
The Washington Post lawyers submitted a "motion to dismiss" to the judge, in this case one Senior District Judge William O. Bertelsman, who granted the motion.
Why is this most probably a case of the judge bypassing proper legal procedure and, possibly illegally, dismissing this case without letting the victims defend their case?
In the United States legal system, a "motion to dismiss" is submitted and should be granted in cases where no trial is necessary because the lawsuit is frivolous or inactionable.
One example of this is if someone sued someone else of murder, but there has been no murder. There is no murder victim, there are no incident reports by the police, and the alleged victim of the murder either doesn't exist or is actually alive and well. There's nothing to prosecute the accused of. Clearly this is just a completely frivolous (and ridiculous) lawsuit, so it makes no sense to proceed to trial, and thus it can be dismissed.
Another example is when a crime might actually have been committed, but it's not sanctionable even if the trial would find the accused guilty of it. Most typically this is the case when the crime is too old, and the statute of limitations kicking in. In other words, the alleged crime was made too long ago, and even if it were determined to have happened it would not result in any sort of punishment. In this case, too, the defending attorney can simply submit a motion to dismiss for this reason, and it will probably be granted (unless the opposing attorney can argue why the statute of limitations doesn't apply.)
In this case, however, there is a clear accusation of a crime based on an actual event, on the actual actions of the news organization, and the lawsuit was relevant in that if the accused were found guilty, there would be a legal punishment. This is a quite clear case where the veracity of the accusations should be determined by both parties presenting their case in a court trial.
In fact, in his argument why he's granting the motion to dismiss, the judge is actually making a judgment based on the claims and what he sees as the facts of the case... without allowing the prosecution to present their case. Neither the prosecution nor the defendants have been heard, they haven't been given any opportunity to present their arguments and cross-examine witnesses, or anything. The judge jumped directly to the judgment of the case, acting effectively as the defense attorney to the defendants (ie. the Washington Post), making their case for them and judging based on that, and not even hearing any counter-arguments from the prosecution.
This is not a motion to dismiss. This is effectively a judgment. A judgment that, effectively, finds the defendants not guilty. (And yes, this means that they cannot be prosecuted for the same crime again. This is one of the side effects of a motion to dismiss.)
While I'm not a lawyer, I strongly believe that the judge acted completely improperly in this case, bypassing proper procedure, perhaps even breaking the law himself in doing so. This case was not handled properly by the book, and instead the judge incorrectly used the motion to dismiss as a shortcut to jump to the final verdict without even having a trial and without hearing any arguments. This is not the proper way for a judge to enact law and pass judgment. This might even be illegal.
Comments
Post a Comment