contestada

Fact Pattern:
Peter Protester is a fairly well-known rabble-rouser. His demonstrations have made news across the southwest, and he's been on TV several times. Now, he has had it with the current state of politics. He gathers his group of followers, and they head to downtown Phoenix to make their grievances known. Peter's followers are generally law-abiding, but there are a few in there who have been arrested after turning peaceful protest into vandalism.
After about two hours of chanting and marching, Peter yells, "Alright, we've done the peaceful thing long enough. Now let's take some real action! Let's start breaking some windows now!"
Phoenix Police immediately arrest him.
Meantime, Rachel Reporter is in the KPHO-TV newsroom and gets a call from a police source. The source tells Rachel to take a look at the police report from Peter's arrest. Rachel heads down to the Phoenix Police Records Department and gets a copy of the police report. In it, the arresting officer writes, "This is the same Peter Protester who was convicted of domestic terrorism in 2010."
Rachel believes she has a real scoop on her hands and calls for a live truck to meet her at the scene of the protest. Rachel's live report includes the news of today's arrest. She also quotes the police report, saying Peter was convicted of domestic terrorism in 2010." Rachel did not check with police or try to get ahold of Peter in jail or speak to his lawyer to verify the conviction.
As it turns out, the police report was inaccurate. Peter was never convicted of domestic terrorism.
What charge would prosecutors likely file against Peter and will the case succeed? why?
If Peter sues Rachel, what lawsuit would he likely file and would he succeed? why? Is actual malice required here and is it present? why? Does the fair report privilege apply here to protect Rachel from liability? why?

Respuesta :

annyksl

Answer and Explanation:

1. Prosecutors may claim that the inaccurate report to which Rachel had access could induce misinterpretation on her part and that, in any case, Peter was already on the police for vandalism, which contributed to Rachel's conclusion. These justifications would not be successful, because Rachel had many ways to find out what actually happened to Peter.

2. Peter would sue Rachel for defamation and would likely succeed, as he has several witnesses that Rachel released incorrect information and that it affects his reputation.

3. The current malice is necessary in this case because Peter is a very well-known and popular person, and it is important that the current malice is inserted in the case, to speed up the process.

4. The fair report privilege can be used to protect Rachel, since the false information about Peter that she exposed, had as its only source a public document that induced her to publish the defamation.

Otras preguntas