Report: Gareon Conley Has Filed a Counter Suit against the Woman who Falsely Accused Him of Rape

[Doc]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The penalty for falsely accusing someone should be identical to the penalty for commiting the act.

 

How about "the English rule" instead?

[GunnerBill]

47 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

How about "the English rule" instead?

 

It only applies to civil litigation, not criminal.  So there is no "penalty" as such. In civil litigation you are seeking redress (usually money).  In a claim and counter claim civil case which is what it now sounds like this is the loser would ultimately bear the cost of litigation. 

[Doc]

31 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

It only applies to civil litigation, not criminal.  So there is no "penalty" as such. In civil litigation you are seeking redress (usually money).  In a claim and counter claim civil case which is what it now sounds like this is the loser would ultimately bear the cost of litigation. 

 

True but in this type of criminal case, (a lot of) money is being spent in the court system and the plaintiff is bringing a case against someone.

[C.Biscuit97]

I mean if she did make it up, she should get sued/ face jail time.  If someone is a rapist, they are POSs.  But if someone makes up a rape claim to purposely hurt someone’s life/ career, they need to be held accountable.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

True but in this type of criminal case, (a lot of) money is being spent in the court system and the plaintiff is bringing a case against someone.

 

Are they? Isn't it the state or district attorney bringing the case? I'm not an expert on the US system but I am pretty sure criminals prosecutions are not brought by alleged victims. Same in the UK. Criminal prosecutions are brought by the Crown Prosecution Service. I don't see how you can create a situation where that means the alleged victim becomes liable for cost within that system - even if you thought it desirable from a policy perspective - which I am not persuaded that it is.  

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Are they? Isn't it the state or district attorney bringing the case? I'm not an expert on the US system but I am pretty sure criminals prosecutions are not brought by alleged victims. Same in the UK. Criminal prosecutions are brought by the Crown Prosecution Service. I don't see how you can create a situation where that means the alleged victim becomes liable for cost within that system - even if you thought it desirable from a policy perspective - which I am not persuaded that it is.  

 

In a case like this, the victim has to make a complaint first. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

In a case like this, the victim has to make a complaint first. 

 

Yes but once they make a complaint then the decision to prosecute and the way the case proceeds is out of their hands and in the hands of the prosecutor.  They can't instruct them on what arguments to run like you do your lawyer in a civil case.  I just see no way at all to shift a financial liability to someone who is not a party to the proceedings.  The parties are the state and the defendant.  

[Coach Tuesday]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yes but once they make a complaint then the decision to prosecute and the way the case proceeds is out of their hands and in the hands of the prosecutor.  They can't instruct them on what arguments to run like you do your lawyer in a civil case.  I just see no way at all to shift a financial liability to someone who is not a party to the proceedings.  The parties are the state and the defendant.  

 

You can be civilly liable for false imprisonment/malicious prosecution, and perjury is a crime.

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

You can be civilly liable for false imprisonment/malicious prosecution, and perjury is a crime.

 

Yep I alluded to that earlier - perjury (lying under oath) and perverting the course of justice (fabricating evidence) are both criminal offences in the UK too. But that then becomes a separate prosecution where the alleged victim (not a party) in the first prosecution is the defendant (a party) in the second. 

 

Haven't read the detail enough to know which civil tort Conley is counter claiming for but I suspect it is defamation and of course the alleged victim (who is a party in the civil case because she is the original plaintiff and a defendant in the counter claim) if she were to be found civilly liable in that case under UK law would be liable for payment of costs.  

 

My point to Doc was that even if you were persuaded it was desirable from a policy perspective introducing some sort of cost shifting power in criminal proceedings it wouldn't work because the alleged victim is not a party in those proceedings.  Criminal trials are State vs Defendant. If the state loses that might mean the state messed the case up not that the alleged victim was guilty of any misrepresentation whatsoever.  Or, as is the case in many, many rape cases it might simply mean it is a her word vs his scenario and therefore the jury cannot be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.  Doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Defendants in criminal trials are found Guilty or Not Guilty.  Nobody is 'found innocent'.  

Edited July 6, 2018 by GunnerBill

[RyanC883]

14 hours ago, Mango said:

Interesting that this is a civil case, because the DA could pursue it criminally if they thought enough of it. 

 

He wasnt found innocent, just not enough for indightment. His claim that her accusation caused him to fall in the draft is separate from actual guilt. A lot of rape cases go this way.

  

I wouldn’t pursue it if I were him. Not really worth it. It also doesn’t clear him of anything. I say this not knowing the details of the proceedings. Just what each event actually means. 

 

I'd pursue it.  No way a DA is going to touch a case like this in the era of #metoo.  Political suicide as most are elected.  

 

If he is pursuing it in court, he must be confident he didn't do it.  There is discovery.  A chance for the truth to come out here.  Good for him if he didn't do it, incredibly stupid for him if he did.  

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

I'd pursue it.  No way a DA is going to touch a case like this in the era of #metoo.  Political suicide as most are elected.  

 

If he is pursuing it in court, he must be confident he didn't do it.  There is discovery.  A chance for the truth to come out here.  Good for him if he didn't do it, incredibly stupid for him if he did.  

 

She was already suing tho.  His is a counter claim.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The penalty for falsely accusing someone should be identical to the penalty for commiting the act.

 

I think you might want to think that one through a little more.   As a mental exercise, let's say it's a case of murder.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You live in a dream world.  Do you even understand what White Linen is saying?

 

One can accuse somebody of something, then lose the argument... The case then may be viewed that somebody falsely accused another...

 

This would have profound ramifications when dealing with crime.  Criminal behavior would skyrocket.  

 

Most people are honest.  Fraud is a small % of everything.  Around 5%, if even that high. There's always collateral damage, it's better to error on the side of allowing the victims to come forward instead of the fear of losing shutting them down.

 

Good points all, but then there are cases where an accuser recanted their story under the force of intense police questioning, and were charged and punished.

 

The perpetrator went on to commit additional crimes and was eventually caught - AND INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE FOUND THAT THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED AS THE ACCUSER ORIGINALLY STATED.  The most famous of these is the case of a woman identified as Marie, from Lynnwood, WA.  "Under pressure, Marie eventually recanted — and was charged with false reporting, punishable by up to a year in jail. The court ordered her to pay $500 in court costs, get mental health counseling for her lying and go on supervised probation for one year. More than two years later, the police in Colorado arrested a serial rapist — and discovered a photograph proving he had raped Marie."   There was a network crime show profiling this case.  Often these are people with a handicap or people with no support system (Marie was a former foster child with minimal support system).

Those cases may also be a small percentage - it's hard to tell.  My point is that things just aren't that black and white.  I don't know why people falsely recant true accusations, any more than I understand why people falsely plead guilty to things they didn't do - the thing is, we know it happens.

Returning to the football relevance: the guy wasn't "found innocent".  The Grand Jury didn't indict him.  The woman, last April, filed a civil lawsuit against him (and I think other parties - the hotel?).  Conley's lawyers have now filed a counter- suit. (Only SI seems to be reporting this correctly)

This is likely not some #himtoo burning thirst for vengeance against a false accusation, but a cold-eyed legal tactic of suit/countersuit designed to optimize his outcome with the woman's lawsuit, where the burden of proof is relatively low "more likely than not".

 

[BuffaloRush]

15 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Nothing good will come of this (thread).

 

My thoughts exactly

[Doc]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yep I alluded to that earlier - perjury (lying under oath) and perverting the course of justice (fabricating evidence) are both criminal offences in the UK too. But that then becomes a separate prosecution where the alleged victim (not a party) in the first prosecution is the defendant (a party) in the second. 

 

Haven't read the detail enough to know which civil tort Conley is counter claiming for but I suspect it is defamation and of course the alleged victim (who is a party in the civil case because she is the original plaintiff and a defendant in the counter claim) if she were to be found civilly liable in that case under UK law would be liable for payment of costs.  

 

My point to Doc was that even if you were persuaded it was desirable from a policy perspective introducing some sort of cost shifting power in criminal proceedings it wouldn't work because the alleged victim is not a party in those proceedings.  Criminal trials are State vs Defendant. If the state loses that might mean the state messed the case up not that the alleged victim was guilty of any misrepresentation whatsoever.  Or, as is the case in many, many rape cases it might simply mean it is a her word vs his scenario and therefore the jury cannot be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.  Doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Defendants in criminal trials are found Guilty or Not Guilty.  Nobody is 'found innocent'.  

 

One question: in a case like this, would a DA proceed if the alleged victim refused to cooperate? 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

One question: in a case like this, would a DA proceed if the alleged victim refused to cooperate? 

 

In the UK, where I can talk with more certainty, it is unlikely the CPS would proceed where a victim either tries to withdraw their allegation or refuses to stand as a prosecution witness. However, it does happen. When the CPS take decisions they look at the whole weight of the evidence not just what the alleged victim says. 

 

But even if you assume (and it is a fair assumption) that in 90% of cases the alleged victim wants the case to go to trial then it still doesn't make them a party. They are likely a prosecution witness and no more. Therefore how can you hold them in some way liable for the cost when they are not the one who (in a not guilty verdict scenario) has failed to persuade the jury? 

 

The way to avoid genuinely false and malicious accusations destroying lives and careers is not to intervene at the trial stage with some sort of cobbled together third party deterrant cost regime. It is upstream in the evidence gathering and investigation phase immediately following the initial complaint - ie. before an innocent party is even charged. We here in the UK have had a series of high profile rape cases collapse in court when it turns out that the police and / or the CPS have failed to investigate or failed to disclose key pieces of evidence that supported the defendant's case. 

 

I think you are identifying a legitimate issue (certainly in the UK at least) that the police have worked so hard over the last 20 years to encourage women to feel comfortable making allegations rather than feeling threatened or mistrusted that there is almost now a culture of take everything they say on trust and don't investigate fully. I just think your policy response of a costs related intervention at the court stage is the wrong one and would be extremely difficult to practically implement in any event. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think you might want to think that one through a little more.   As a mental exercise, let's say it's a case of murder.

 

I have thought it through completely, for years.

 

We're talking about a legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

The same legal standard which would be used to convict a rapist or murderer.

 

Absence of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of a rape or murder is not evidence of someone knowingly and intentionally making false claims.

 

It would, and should, be exceedingly difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone made such a claim.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

34 minutes ago, Doc said:

One question: in a case like this, would a DA proceed if the alleged victim refused to cooperate? 

 

Prefer one of our resident attorneys to chime in, but AFAIK in US almost certainly not.  The closest might be the Vanderbilt rape case, where the police pursued the investigation based upon video evidence and texts at a point where the victim did not know, and insisted she hadn't, been raped (she cooperated after reviewing the evidence the police gathered).

 

That still doesn't mean the victim is responsible (a party) for indicting or for presenting the State's case.  We had a recent high-profile murder trial in St Louis where the prosecution's case was presented so horridly (prosecution witnesses that contradicted key points of their case, for example) that I actually wondered if the prosecutors deliberately threw the case.

 

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I have thought it through completely, for years.

We're talking about a legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same legal standard which would be used to convict a rapist or murderer.

Absence of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of a rape or murder is not evidence of someone knowingly and intentionally making false claims.

It would, and should, be exceedingly difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone made such a claim.

 

OK, I accept you've thought it through.  But there have been some well-publicized and egregious cases in which someone was charged with and punished for making a false criminal complaint (with the usual penalties, not the same ones the alleged perpetrator faced), and it backfired spectacularly. 

 

So we'll have to agree to disagree spectacularly here.  I'm all for supporting criminal charges of making a false complaint or perjury where appropriate, but they have nowhere near the same impact as some of the crimes, and thus IMO the penalty should be no where near the same.

 

And returning to the football topic:

 

In this case the lack of indictment against Conley does not come near to demonstrating that the victim made a false complaint - merely that the evidence was sufficient to persuade the Grand Jury to indict him on criminal charges, with the proof standard "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Nor does his filing a lawsuit against the accuser in this instance indicate that he has extraordinary confidence in his innocence and her falsity - she filed a lawsuit first, his is a counter-suit filed several months later, apparently a fairly standard legal maneuver.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Yes, that ought to fully deter people who lack faith in the justice system from coming forward to report crimes against them.  Well done.  

 

There are some raging psychotics around here.

 

This is whole untrue, and reeks of bias.

 

Your position leads to a place which seeks to convict more individuals of rape, rather than convict more rapists of rape.  Individuals and rapists are not synonyms, and a justice system which seeks to make convictions easier isn't metering out justice.  The accuser does not "deserve to be believed".  The accused does.

 

Innocent until proven guilty requires the presumption of innocence.

 

The same standard, the presumption of innocence, would apply to the person being accused of making false claims.  A criminal statute which would of course be narrowly defined.

 

Proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone knowingly and intentionally accused another person of rape would and should be an incredibly high bar to get over.

 

More so, it's fair, and it's just.  Which is what any decent person should want from it's justice system.

[MJS]

8 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You live in a dream world.  Do you even understand what White Linen is saying?

 

One can accuse somebody of something, then lose the argument... The case then may be viewed that somebody falsely accused another...

 

This would have profound ramifications when dealing with crime.  Criminal behavior would skyrocket.  

 

Most people are honest.  Fraud is a small % of everything.  Around 5%, if even that high. There's always collateral damage, it's better to error on the side of allowing the victims to come forward instead of the fear of losing shutting them down.

 

 

 

That's bull crap. You still have to convince the judge and / or jury that the accusation was false. Countersuits happen all the time, and it doesn't cause crime to skyrocket.