Exonerated Marine to sue Rep. Murtha

[roo_ster]

Can't say I blame the jarhead.

==============

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08269/914907-85.stm

Exonerated Marine to sue Rep. Murtha
Thursday, September 25, 2008
By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

One of the Marines cleared in the killings of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha plans to sue his congressman today for statements he says defamed him and other members of his squad.

Former Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 24, of Canonsburg, will file a civil lawsuit against U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Johnstown, who was widely quoted two years ago saying that eight Marines carried out a cold-blooded killing of 24 civilians in the Iraqi town on Nov. 19, 2005.

Charges were later dropped against all but one of the Marines, with a military prosecutor calling allegations against Mr. Sharratt "incredible."

Noah Geary, a Washington County lawyer representing Mr. Sharratt, said his client will file suit today in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh accusing Mr. Murtha of violating his constitutional rights as well as slander for statements about the Haditha incident. A 1:30 p.m. news conference has been planned to announce the suit.

"He just held innumerable press conferences, just repeatedly kept saying this was cold-blooded murder," Mr. Geary said of the congressman.

While Mr. Sharratt killed three insurgents, Mr. Geary said, he followed the rules of engagement for combat.

The Haditha incident remains a political flash point in the Iraq War, with critics saying Mr. Murtha, a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, defamed American troops.

Mr. Murtha could not be reached last night and a spokesman did not respond to a message requesting comment.

One of the Marines at Haditha, squad leader Frank Wuterich, sued Mr. Murtha shortly after the congressman's first public remarks at the beginning of 2006. That lawsuit has been in abeyance as Mr. Wuterich remains the only member of the eight-man squad still facing charges in connection with the deaths.

Prosecutors accused Mr. Wuterich, the staff sergeant, of leading some members of his squad to attack Iraqi civilians as revenge for a roadside bomb that killed one Marine and wounded two others. The defendants said any civilians who died were killed unintentionally, caught in the crossfire of a battle that broke out with insurgents after the blast.

Mr. Geary said Mr. Sharratt shot three individuals later identified as insurgents.

In the year after he was cleared, Mr. Sharratt left the Marine Corps. His father, Darryl, said he telephoned Mr. Murtha's office more than 40 times seeking an apology.

Sometime last year, Darryl Sharratt said, he reached the congressman personally.

"He kept skirting the issue," Darryl Sharratt said. "This was right after Justin was exonerated and at no time did he acknowledge the fact that Justin was exonerated. He played the role of politician."

[280plus]

Couldn't happen to a nicer SOB. 

[Josh Aston]

Give 'im hell!

[Standing Wolf]

Once in a great while, assault lawyers have their uses. This seems one of them.

[280plus]

Yup, another guy that needs a good swift kick in the ass.

[g3shooter]

This is gonna be good...best of luck to the Marine.

[Bruce H]

Personally I would rather he go completely midevil on Murtha. That is just one jarheads opinion.

[Bob F.]

Someone have the wherewithall to set up a Sharratt legal fund? SUE THE BASTARD!!!!!!!!!

[De Selby]

Once in a great while, assault lawyers have their uses. This seems one of them.

"Assault lawyers"?

All I can say is, I hope this poor guy isn't paying by the hour, because he is getting ripped off badly if he is.

[Regolith]

As much as I dislike what Murtha did....I don't see that the Marine has a case.  For a person to be held liable for libel or slander, you have to prove that the person who committed the act knew what they said was wrong and that there was malicious intent.  Since the statements appear to have been made prior to the trial where the facts were decided, it looks like it would be dastardly hard to prove that Murtha was acting knowingly and with malicious intent.  Unless it could be proved that Murtha had in his possession evidence exonerating the Marines and still making the statements, then Sharrat is likely to lose.

Libel and slander cases are notoriously hard to prosecute in the US, and rightfully so, as they were originally used by public officials to repress dissent. 

[seeker_two]

I hope we can contribute to his legal fund, too....

[Perd Hapley]

Once in a great while, assault lawyers have their uses. This seems one of them.

"Assault lawyers"?

All I can say is, I hope this poor guy isn't paying by the hour, because he is getting ripped off badly if he is.

I hope he's not paying a dime.  Even if Murtha loses, I doubt the penalty will hurt him any.  The bad publicity on the other hand...   

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

murtha has been washed up. this can just be the rail they ride him outa town on. or someone can give him a luger and one bullet and leave the room. though they probably need to explain to him what the honorable thing to do is

[Hawkmoon]

As much as I dislike what Murtha did....I don't see that the Marine has a case.  For a person to be held liable for libel or slander, you have to prove that the person who committed the act knew what they said was wrong and that there was malicious intent.  Since the statements appear to have been made prior to the trial where the facts were decided, it looks like it would be dastardly hard to prove that Murtha was acting knowingly and with malicious intent.

If the shoe were on the other foot, you would be right. I believe for someone "in the public eye" (such as an elected public official) to prove libel or slander, they have to show malicious intent. For private citizens, malicious intent is not necessary. All that's necessary is for the speaker to have engaged in a reckless disregard for the truth. Murtha shot off his pie hole without making any effort to verify the truth of his accusations. That meets the test for slander.

I think the Marine has a slam dunk case.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Don't congresscritters have a bit of legal immunity while they serve?

[280plus]

Last time I looked into filing a slander case the story was, ok, maybe you can prove someone said something slanderous about you. That's fine. But THEN you have to prove that the slanderous act caused you to somehow lose money and then determine how much for awards to be given. The lawyers will make money though. 

[KD5NRH]

Last time I looked into filing a slander case the story was, ok, maybe you can prove someone said something slanderous about you. That's fine. But THEN you have to prove that the slanderous act caused you to somehow lose money and then determine how much for awards to be given. The lawyers will make money though. 

Look up "defamation per se" on your favorite search engine.  In summary, accusations of a crime (in some cases, specifically a crime of moral turpitude - murder qualifies either way) are among the types of defamation that are considered inherently damaging in most jurisdictions.

[280plus]

So i did!

For the whole thing: 

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Excerpt:

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

Edited out paragraph


Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

[KD5NRH]

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

When you go after a high-profile politician, the goal is rarely the money.  A loss would look bad for Murtha not only in getting reelected, but also in any other political endeavors.

[The Annoyed Man]

Yep, egg him in the face publicly. The guy makes me sick. I wonder if he was a draftee Marine or a volunteer? Not that it makes a difference much.

Jim

[slingshot]

I'd like to see Murtha's ears pinned back on this deal.  I have similar feelings about John Kerry.

[KD5NRH]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_593466.html?source=rss&feed=1

U.S. Rep. John Murtha stands by a controversial remark he made previously that U.S. Marines killed women and children "in cold blood" in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.

Guess there's not going to be an apology...this should make for an interesting court case.

[Sergeant Bob]

I know that not much is likely to happen to that traitorous scumbag but, I sincerely wish him to be run out of town on a rail.