Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Realfan555 t1_jcl967g wrote

Reply to comment by Thetruthislikepoetry in Michael Irvin plays video of encounter at center of $100m Marriott lawsuit | NFL by Cyip92

Wait, has it been confirmed that he actually said this?

He's already denied it. What would change during the deposition?

1

Thetruthislikepoetry t1_jcl9tl6 wrote

The statement is alleged. What would change during a deposition? Other witnesses and being under oath. He also said he doesn’t Talk like that. I’m sure the attorney involved is already looking into his past to find 1 person who has heard him say something like this.

1

Realfan555 t1_jclbigb wrote

Wait... so you're saying his attorney hasn't asked him all of this yet?

I'm a bit confused. Did his attorney not explain all of this to him?

​

>I’m sure the attorney involved is already looking into his past to find 1 person who has heard him say something like this.

This won't be admissible in court.

1

Thetruthislikepoetry t1_jclf6q8 wrote

In a civil suit it is

1

Realfan555 t1_jclicli wrote

B. Character Evidence in Civil Cases

1. General rule: Character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in civil cases.

For example, a defendant cannot offer the testimony of friends (or her own testimony) that she is usually a very careful driver as circumstantial evidence she was probably driving carefully and not negligently on the day of an accident.

2. Character in issue.

Character evidence is occasionally admissible if a trait of character has been placed in issue by the pleadings.

Lawsuits in which character is a material issue are extremely uncommon.

One must be careful not to confuse:

an allegation of particular unsavory behavior (e.g., acted maliciously on a certain day)

with true character (tendency to be malicious on all days and toward all people).

Character is a material issue in the following types of cases:

a) Defamation.

Character is in issue in a defamation case when the defamatory statement falsely accuses the plaintiff of having a general flaw, e.g., accusing Hillary Clinton of being a liar.

Character is not in issue if the defamatory statement falsely accuses the plaintiff of a specific act, e.g., Hillary lied about Benghazi.

https://law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/b723/06char/T06.pdf

​

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, in this instance, if the defamatory statement was:

"Michael Irvin is a sexual harasser of women," then his character would be at issue and they can introduce specific past instances (since they're trying to prove that Michael Irvin is a sexual harasser of women).

But the defamatory statement was:

"Michael Irvin sexually harassed a Marriott employee on the night of Feb 5th." So, character evidence would be inadmissible in court because this is one SPECIFIC ACT and you can't use character evidence to disprove one SPECIFIC ACT.

1

Realfan555 t1_jdik5gw wrote

>In a civil suit it is

Did you ever find the relevant law you were referring to?

1