Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 3 weeks ago

When proving slander does the plaintiff have to be specific as to when exactly or what the exact words were made?

Also, would the person the comment be made have to do an affidavit to what exactly was said and when? 

9 Answers

  • 3 weeks ago

    The plaintiff has to be specific about the exact words that were said, and provide evidence to back it up. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. 

    If there is no proof or no witness, the defendant can simply deny it. If there is proof the defendant can provide other information to show context in order to help his case. 

    Also the defendant or his lawyer if applicable, needs to know the law of slander and what exactly constitutes slander. In other words, even if the plaintiff proves certain words were used, the defendant may be able to show that those words in that context do not constitute slanderous action under law. 

    The plaintiff has to pass all evidence to the defendant some time before the case so the defendant has time to prepare a defence. 

  • 3 weeks ago

    What was said, who said it, and who besides that person and you heard it.

  • 3 weeks ago

    Yes, you are going to have to prove the person accused actually said what you claim they said top slander you.

  • Anonymous
    3 weeks ago

    It depends on several factors, but in MY State there are "Examinations Before Trial," sworn testimonies of both parties before the case is put on the trial calendar.  Those testimonies allow attorneys on both sides to evaluate the other party.  Those testimonies are recorded and transcribed and used as evidence (for cross examination) at trial.  The person to whom the comment was made COULD submit an affidavit or COULD "simply" testify in Court.  Yes, the exact words are important.  One word can modify a comment.

    These cases are VERY difficult to prove.  Damages also become an issue.  Not everyone believes everything they hear.

    By definition "Slander is a false statement to a third person in 'words.'  Gossip falls into this category."  Therefore, yes, the exact words are important.

    Ask an attorney in your area.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 3 weeks ago

    No, the listener doesn't have do an affidavit. She could, for example, testify in court. Or somebody else could testify that "Sally told me that John said that Jane said ..."

  • 3 weeks ago

    No, it's OK to make up what was said. Really?

  • 3 weeks ago

    The more specific the better... butcha ain't gotta use an atomic clock. The legal standard is to prove something false was stated by a preponderance of the evidence... not something was "kinda stated." Also duty / breach / cause / harm: ya ain't stated no harm, so your cost-benefit of going to court fails.

  • 3 weeks ago

    That's what proving something means.  Microagressions and unconscious biases don't count in the real world, only concrete specifics.  Exactly what was said, when it was spoken, who it was spoken to and what was said before and after are required.

  • 3 weeks ago

    O child, after entering the institutions which enter them without telling people about it, why do they have such wonderful view of the world on the outside?

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.