Legal Question in Business Law in California

Re: Slander/ defirmation of person/with consent

Yes, it is against his rights if John Doe had not pled guilty or entered a "no contest" or similar plea, and it likely is defamation, depending on the wording of the commercial. Feel free to contact me with more details and perhaps the video in question.

Re: Slander/ defirmation of person/with consent

Let me make sure I understand this. Doe was caught on the business's premises, in front of its security cameras, committing a crime. Now he wants damages because he doesn't like the way the video footage -- which the company owns and made on its premises with its own equipment -- is being used. He's not what we lawyers like to call a sympathetic plaintiff.

The definition of defamation (of which slander is one particular form) includes the making of a false statement of fact. Showing an unaltered tape does not amount to making a false statement. The statement that Doe committed theft is not the same thing as saying he was convicted of the crime, and your question acknowledges that he did commit the theft, so the statement is true. I don't see a defamation claim here.

In theory Doe could also try to claim violation of privacy. The problem is that he would have to show he had a reasonable expectation of privacy while on the business's property. Unless he was in the restroom or some other private place at the time he almost certainly can't succeed here.

Another option he might try is "false light publicity", which is the use of facts to portray the plaintiff in an inaccurate and harmful way. Doe might have a case if the ad said that he was a career criminal, but if all it says is that he committed this particular crime then he probably has no claim. The video is indeed harmful to him, but it's harmful because it *is* accurate, not because it isn't.

Even if Doe could win, there would still be the question of how much he is entitled to in damages. Nothing you have said suggests that there would be a lot of money at stake, so if Doe wants a contingent fee attorney he is very unlikely to persuade one to take his case.

Re: Slander/ defirmation of person/with consent

Not being found guilty of a crime is a long way from being acquitted of the crime. It may be crucial to the outcome of this case which of the following is more nearly true:

1. Doe was acquitted of the crime.

2. Doe pled no contest to the crime.

3. Doe was found guilty, but of a lesser offense such as trespassing or breaking and entering.

4. Doe was charged but never tried.

5. Doe was arrested but never charged.

6. Doe was sought but never arrested.

7. Something else happened.

One might think that if Doe were acquitted, then for all legal purposes he did not commit the crime of which he was acquitted. But as O.J. Simpson found out, being acquitted of a crime does not prevent your being found liable in a civil suit for the same acts, where the standard of proof is more lax, and there is a fair chance a suit for defamation will not succeed because the civil jury can still find that the film and the narration are true.

On the other hand, as a plaintiff in a civil defamation case, the alleged thief would only have to show by the preponderance of the evidence that the allegations of the security film and accompanying narration were false. It's his burden of proof this time, to prove his innocence, rather than the DA's as it was in the criminal trial (if any) to prove his guilt, but it's not a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, or even a "clear and convincing" standard, but only a more-likely-than-not, 50-50 weighing.

I can't give a prediction of the outcome without more information.