Generally speaking, there is a privilege for statements in court proceedings by witnesses and lawyers. Those statements can't be the basis for the defamation claim.

Also, if I write an editorial in the newspaper calling you a bank robber, and you have in fact robbed a bank, then I have not defamed you. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim, and your defamation claim would fail assuming that I could prove that you robbed the bank. In my example, it would make no difference whether you had been convicted of bank robbery in a criminal court.

This.

But it's a show trial and someone wants his daughters on reality TV, I'm sure.

Based on the below I now give the defendants a better than even odds chance of walking.

This law very much parallels the law that allows Police to kill even unarmed and innocent people based on fear alone and that puts the juror in the spot that if they think the Police could be rightful afraid in that spot, then they must acquit. Its can be a near impossible standard to convict on.

In this instance it does not seem the Defense has to prove there was evidence that would give them 'reasonable suspicion' and just that they had 'reasonable suspicion'.

Under that requirement I would probably say that based on their belief systems they in fact had reasonable suspicions . I think they likely did believe they were apprehending a criminal and if that is an out the law provided for I could see it being taken with the right jurors in place.





Slavery-era Georgia law is key defense argument in trial over Ahmaud Arbery's killing

A pivotal defense argument of the three white men on trial in Georgia for killing Ahmaud Arbery, a Black jogger, is that they were trying to make a citizen's arrest under a Civil War-era law that was later repealed amid an uproar over the shooting.

When the fatal encounter occurred on Feb. 23, 2020, it was legal in Georgia for people to arrest someone where they had "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that the person had just committed a felony. Outcry over the killing led to lawmakers revoking the statute in May.

Legal observers say prosecutors will seek to convince the jury that there was no felony over which to arrest Arbery, 25, and that the three men lacked the "reasonable and probable suspicion" required under the old citizen's arrest law. The trial is in the second week of jury selection.

Before Arbery's killing, the law had been largely unchanged since it was codified in 1863, when Georgia was part of the slaveholding Southern Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War.

Most U.S. states have codified some form of a law allowing citizen's arrests. The American Civil Liberties Union and others that successfully sought to repeal the law said the state's statute was originally passed to enable the capture of escaped slaves....

Just saw this now and see it as some rare good news.

I think it will be a super tough case to make as even egregious judgement should be protected and only deliberate shielding or hiding of facts or the like should see her convicted.



Ex-Brunswick DA charged in Ahmaud Arbery case surrenders to law enforcement
September 8, 2021


The former prosecutor charged with misconduct for her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery case was booked at a Georgia jail Wednesday and released...

...A grand jury indicted Johnson, 49, last week on a felony charge of violating her oath of office and a misdemeanor count of obstructing police. Johnson was the area’s top prosecutor when three white men chased and fatally shot Arbery last year. The indictment alleges she used her position to shield the 25-year-old Black man’s killers from prosecution...

..Greg McMichael worked for Johnson as an investigator in the district attorney’s office before retiring in 2019. Phone records introduced in court show he called Johnson and left her a voicemail soon after the shooting.

Johnson has previously denied any wrongdoing, saying she recused her office from the case immediately because of its relationship with Greg McMichael....

That algorithm is good. Read one article and two more fill your feed instantly.

Judge says 'there appears to be intentional discrimination' in Arbery jury selection, but allows trial to move forward with 1 Black juror
November 4, 2021

After a long and contentious jury selection process in a coastal Georgia county in preparation for the trial for Ahmaud Arbery's killing, a panel of 12 people was chosen Wednesday -- consisting of one Black member and 11 White members.

The jury was selected after a two-and-a-half-week selection process that ended with prosecutors for the state accusing defense attorneys of disproportionately striking qualified Black jurors and basing some of their strikes on race.

Judge Timothy Walmsley said the defense appeared to be discriminatory in selecting the jury but that the case could go forward.

"This court has found that there appears to be intentional discrimination," Walmsley said Wednesday.

...
"One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said, but added that in Georgia, "all the defense needs to do is provide that legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific and related reason," for why they struck a juror and he said the defense met that burden...

Defense attorneys previously expressed concern over not only how many people didn't show, but also who was missing among those who did.
"It would appear that White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as 'Bubba' or 'Joe Six Pack,' seem to be significantly underrepresented," defense attorney Kevin Gough, who represents Bryan, told the court Friday.

"Without meaning to be stereotypical in any way, I do think there is a real question in this case whether that demographic is underrepresented in this jury pool," Gough added. "And if it is, then we have a problem with that."
Sheffield, the attorney for Travis McMichael, brought up demographics again this week, stressing that the low turnout of people during the jury selection process meant the pool didn't "fairly reflect the accused in this case, where the accused can't look across the courtroom and see persons that are similarly situated to themselves."

But a jury needs to be representative of only race and gender, not socioeconomic background, ...
"Even if there were no 'Bubbas,' as long as the lawyers are not removing people solely because of race, there's really no problem," Pate said. "You have no legal right to a 'Bubba'-rich jury pool."

If you count the backup jurors there are 16 (IIRC) total jurors of which 1 is Black. The county is like 30% Black. At least the judge made mention of the apparent discrimination.

But nothing can come of the Judge's complaint. The SCOTUS is clear that you have to show discriminatory intent to break the law- differential outcomes alone are insufficient for establishing discrimination. I can set up a business and hire 10000 White males in the deep South and, as long as I give some made up reason other than racial as to why I reject every Black or female applicant, I am untouchable. The defense didn't have to agree to admit 1 Black juror, doing so being a strategic choice no doubt.

this is kind of a necro at this point.. drunk driving deaths aren't negligent homicides any where that i know of.. they are almost always codified separately.

the typical negligent homicide would be you are driving and drop your phone, bend down to pick it up, and strike and kill a pedestrian that had the right of way. in my jurisdiction negligent homicide is a misdemeanor charge. and it was just AWFUL to prosecute because the victims families are understandably not okay with the outcomes.

I was trying to illustrate a point, but your clarification is of course correct.

Bolded isn't correct. Differential outcomes are neither dispositive nor irrelevant.

But without intent there is no case, right? Or are you saying I can hire 10K White males in a row and reject 10K non White males and, if I leave no indication of racism behind my hiring decisions, still be convicted of racial discrimination?

That differential racial outcomes alone cannot establish racial discrimination is my layman understanding.

Intent can be inferred and/or proven beyond a reasonable doubt if it's an element in a crime. Nobody has to take you at your word that you did or did not intend to do something. If that were the case, no crime with a mens rea element would be possible to prosecute, the defendant would just have to use your kindergarten "I didn't mean it, guv" defence.

Your example is terrible anyway, because you're talking about being "convicted" in the context of a civil matter. Nonetheless, it's a similar principle.

Whether or not intent can be inferred from disparate racial outcomes alone (not whether it can ever be inferred) is the question. It seems as though the SCOTUS has said it cannot.

Right. It is one of presumably several items of evidence. Based on the quoted, you seem to agree that your statement that as long as you can give some phoney reason you will be untouchable was clearly wrong, and that is the point on which Rococo corrected you.

Maybe what I said was wrong (not conceded that yet) but what Rococo said, if true, doesn't make what I said wrong.

But whether or not statistical evidence of disparate racial outcomes has any relevancy seems like an debatable question.

Here is one scholars take (Michelle Alexander from whom I got my notion)

Here is a quote from a scholar someone arguing the other side:

Even the opposing opinion recognizes the consensus opinion is that stats don't matter. So it seems like Rococo is expressing his opinion on a contended legal point. I suppose if your justifications for apparently biased hiring were demonstrable lies or something like that maybe that could be construed as intent? If you just gave no reasons or offered vague reasons on a case-by-case basis as to why each minority is declined then there is little opportunity to infer racist intent.

I am saying that the law allows for outcomes to be part of the stew when deciding whether there was intent. As you point out, it can be very difficult or impossible to prevail based on outcomes alone, but it doesn't follow that every phony reason for the disparate outcome has to be accepted.

It's a subtle point. I didn't mean to suggest that your understanding was wildly off the mark.

SCOTUS only said you can't use disparate impact evidence to overturn criminal convictions in Mcclesky. There are plenty of SC cases that allow for disparate impact evidence in the employment discrimination and fair housing arenas.

Your understanding of the scope of Mcclesky is incorrect.

What felony are they claiming that they were trying to arrest Arbery for? I haven't followed the case at all since it happened last year, but at the time it looked like clear cut false imprisonment that resulted in felony homicide. Was there any evidence that he stole or damaged anything from the construction site? Had he previously been trespassed by the police or owner of the property, and therefore was committing a trespassing offense?

I recall that there was several other construction sites vandelized/stolen from but there was no reason for them to believe that Arbery was responsible for those or that he was planning a future sting.

My reading of what i reported there was like the policing law that allows the Police to kill someone completely innocent, committing no crime and not even threatening the officer, that if the officer simply perceived from his vantage that he was at threat (he was taking out his cell phone and I thought it might be a gun) and they can convince a jury it was reasonable for them to fear that, then the cop can get off and the killing call justified.

I am not sure it will be relevant in this trial however as things have played out.

I said I saw no evidence of "systemic" racism, nor were any valid examples given.

How are my policing views extreme, specifically?

If it wasn't legal it was a mere misdemeanor at best, certainly didn't warrant the McMichaels actions. I think they should be viewed as racist thugs and I hope and am optimistic the jury will see them as such.

That's why I have this substandard troll on ignore, I never told any lies re that case, unlike him who lied at least twice . Anyway, not rehashing it except to say I confidently stand by my position.

I don't think I am confusing you with Itshot but if I am you can correct me.

I am pretty sure you and I have discussed the topic of systemic racism and in near 100% of instances (if not 100%) you have denied its existence even when I presented proof such as the Banking Sector and the gov't admitting, The Banks themselves admitting it. Courts findings finding it. Academic Papers acknowledging it.

For any standard of Proof what I supplied was as substantial as what is available to us on planet Earth and yet you hand waved it away suggesting your opinion, that none of it was Systemic Racism was all that mattered.

I did that across many segments in society (Education, etc.) and each and every time you denied any systemic racism.

I'm not rehashing this but again I wasn't given valid examples and the banking aspect was counterpointed. I have no extreme views on the police. I'm not anti police but don;t think they're infallible either and have zero tolerance for the Chauvin style cops

bruh, they are all Chauvin style cops. how many were sitting there watching him? how many covered for Chauvin for years?

I gave you countless examples. Examples from banking that the Bank themselves admitted was IR, that Courts found were IR and the gov't said was IR and examples like that in many areas.

In each and every one you simply countered 'you don't consider it valid therefore its not' which in forms of argumentation is simply saying my opinion is all that matters on this topic.

I posted facts. Facts in law, facts in admissions.