Ky. teen facing jail for naming sexual assault attackers

I think (not sure here) they could argue it was consensual and despite the fact that everyone knows they are lying, there would be no legal proof to discredit them. As I understand it, it would only be her word against theirs, again because everything is sealed.
Of course in going to civil court, everything comes out (except the juvey crimes). The girl is grilled, why did she get so drunk she passed out? Had she had sex with one or both of these kids before? Is she sexually active? How many sex partners has she had? .... It would be really hard on her.

Several years ago we learned of a couple of high school football players involved in a theft ring. One of them pleaded guilty and provided a confession. I got a copy of the plea from the circuit clerk's office - complete with the stamp.
I called the kid's dad for comment. He called a lawyer who immediately hustled his ass to court and got an emergency injunction against the paper prohibiting us from going to print.
The judge also agreed to seal the plea.*
The story never saw print. By sealing the plea - despite the fact I had a copy from the court - the copy I had would not be admissible in court. Our lawyers told the publisher not to run the story.




* If I remember correctly the crimes were committed when the kid was 17 but he made the plea and confession when he was 18.

 

How would that not be a prior restraint?

 

What's the difference between posting something on the internet and talking about it on the street corner?

It's just that more people read/hear it. The court may be obligated to seal certain records as part of a plea deal, but they have no right to tell someone what they can and cannot say publicly or privately.

 

The victim is a witness, so she would be bound by a gag order and subject to a contempt of court charge.

 

Disagree. She can't be a witness if there is no trial.

If I happen to witness a robbery or a car crash or a sex assault and I want to say something, so be it. If you think what I say is untrue, prove me wrong.

 

I'll take my knowledge of the legal system over yours.

 

I'll take a bullet to the frontal cortex over either of you.

 

When suing for slander don't you have to prove the person said something that isn't true? The person would be innocent until proven guilty.

 

For sure.

 

I don't know. I fought with my editor and and pubisher for weeks.
One of the TV stations also had the information and never ran the story for the same reason. Its lawyer said no.

 

Different standards for public and private figures.

 

I'm no legal scholar (and neither are most of you, I gather), but I can't imagine she'll actually face jail time for this.

No prosecutor is going to bring her up on charges for this. You know why? There are two groups of people in favor of him/her doing so: the families of the perps. In the group opposed to it: the entire rest of the world. As someone else said, if the prosecutor tries to bring this to trial, within a few years he'll become the first standing elected official to unanimously lose a vote for re-election.