re: Poli Board Defamation Scholars

quote:

---

Well, he can't prove that he wasn't drunk unless they happened to do a BAC or something at the time. So what he would need is the word of someone else willing to go to bat for him who was actually there at the time (Patel alleges The Atlantic's sources do not have first hand knowledge of what they are even alleging) and says they're untrue, right?

---

Prove is relative. The burden of proof (in other words, the degree to which the thing must be proven) is by a preponderance of the evidence. That means greater than 50/50. Patel proves to a jury greater than 50% (even 50.1%) that the claims are false, then he's met his burden of proof on that element. And by "prove to a jury" I simply mean convince, or persuade. Depending on your jury, if they find him credible, his own denials could be enough. To survive summary judgement, he only needs evidence sufficient that a jury could believe by a preponderance of the evidence that the story is false.

Falsity/Truth is usually not the issue on summary judgement. These types of things are nearly impossible to prove definitively one way or another. If falsity/truth was the only issue, you'd at least get the case to the jury and avoid dismissal every time.

The problem is finding some evidence to show that a jury could believe the reporter knew it was false, and published it anyway in order to harm Patel. That evidence is usually hard to find, and pure "well that's what makes sense" isn't enough. You need some real testimony and documentary evidence to make the case. Conversely, evidence to show the reporter at least had a reason to believe it was true is almost always present. Even if that evidence falls well short of what we would all expect a quality outlet to rely on before publication.