Nancy Grace Under Fire With Defamation & Slander Lawsuit

Slander, libel and defamation charges get thrown around a lot in the media, but many people don’t know precisely what they mean.

In today’s blog post, I’d like to take a moment to discuss how these legal terms fit together before examining how they are applied in a case. Specifically, we’ll examine how slander charges played out in a recent case involving television host Nancy Grace and Michael Shakel, nephew to Robert Kennedy.

Defamation

Establishing defamation generally requires four elements:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity.
2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person.
3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence.
4. Harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Libel

Libel is the name for defamation that happens in embodied physical forms. This includes print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies or any other non-verbal communication. There are a few variants between libel and slander that bear noting.

First, recovery of damages may be awarded without proof of actual harm. This is because the courts view the fact of the publication to be harm in and of itself. However, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the court ruled that, in the case of public figures or matters of public concern, proof of actual malice is required for an award of damages. It ruled this way because it reasoned that the goal of promoting speech on matters of public interest is more valuable than compensating individuals for damage to their reputations.

Slander

Slander refers to defamation made orally. While damages from libel are presumed because of the fact of publication, damages from slander must be proven by the plaintiff. Logically, this makes sense: It would be extremely difficult to prosecute every single person who says untruths about any other person. Only people who have been materially hurt are eligible for compensation.

The case against Grace

Nancy Grace is a legal commentator, television host and former prosecutor. She advocates for victims’ rights and her show is a ratings success, but critics argue that she is too quick to throw out due assumption of innocence.

Michael Shakel is a nephew of Robert Kennedy and a suspect in the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley. He was convicted of the crime and spent 11 years in prison, but was freed in 2013 for a retrial.

In her discussion of the case with legal commentator Beth Karas, Grace stated that Shakel had masturbated in a tree looking into Moxley’s window, and that his DNA was found in the tree as a result. In fact, there was no discussion in the 2002 trial of DNA evidence.

Shakel sued Grace, Karas and Time Warner Inc. claiming that the comments had hurt his chances for a fair retrial and his reputation. This is the established harm, necessary for a charge of slander – because the defamation was spoken.

The defendants attempted to have the case dismissed on the argument that the statements were “substantially true” if not verifiable, but Judge Vanessa Bryant ruled that a lawsuit was warranted.

In a trial, Shakel would have had to demonstrate proof of harm. Instead, the defendants settled, including a statement on Grace’s website stating the untruth of her statements, the removal of any reference to the offending comments and undisclosed monetary terms.

Anyone in the public eye holds some liability for defamation suits. The safest course of action? Stick to what you can prove.