Judging from today’s ruling by Judge Raymond Patrico Schofield v Gillard (D.Idaho):
The case stemmed from the brutal murder of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. She claimed that even though defendant Ashley Guillard had never met the students and was not involved in the murders in any way, he posted more than 100 lurid TikTok (and later YouTube) videos, Falsely claiming that the plaintiff (i) had an extramarital, homosexual, romantic relationship with one of the victims; and then (ii) ordered the murder of four people to prevent the incident from being exposed. The plaintiffs sent cease-and-desist orders to the defendants in the days and weeks that followed. When the defendant failed to desist, the plaintiff initiated the action. The plaintiff brought two defamation claims against the defendant: one premised on a false statement regarding the plaintiff’s involvement in the murder itself, and the other based on a false statement regarding the plaintiff’s romantic relationship with a murdered student….
The court concluded that Gillard’s allegations against Schofield (discussed in more detail in the full opinion) were defamatory from a legal perspective and that Schofield was entitled to summary relief as to the falseness of the allegations. Verdict, so that there is no need to leave asking the jury questions of right and wrong:
First, the plaintiff clearly states that (i) the defendant’s statements are false; (ii) she has never been in a romantic relationship with the following persons [K.G.]; (iii) She was not involved in the murder of four University of Idaho students; (iv) She never met any of the murdered students; (v) She never taught any of the murdered students; (vi) She herself was not Know any of the murdered students; (vii) She was in Portland, Oregon when the murders occurred. Additionally, in response to Plaintiff’s subpoena, the University of Idaho confirmed that it had no record that the murdered student had been enrolled in a course taught by Plaintiff, nor was there any investigation into an inappropriate relationship with Plaintiff. [K.G.], or any investigation into the complainant’s involvement in the murder. Finally, there is nothing to suggest that the accuser is or was ever considered a suspect in the murder… What is certain is that Mr. Koberg was arrested and charged with murder.
This is strong evidence at the summary judgment stage. Not only did it corroborate the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s statements about her were false, it also highlighted the complete lack of any corroborative support for the defendant’s statements. In this way, the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that there was no real issue of material fact as to the falsity of the defendant’s statements about her.
This shifts the burden to the defendant to challenge the claim by presenting facts showing that there is a real trial issue as to whether her statements to the plaintiff were true. In this regard, defendants “may not rely on denials in the complaint but must provide specific evidence by affidavit or admissible discovery material to establish that the dispute exists.”
Apart from only Supporting Defendant’s statement about Plaintiff is that Defendant’s “psychic investigation” of the murder using “intuitive tarot readings” led her to Plaintiff. OP. to morning. MPSJ 3 (Dkt.65) (“Girard used her supernatural cognitive abilities to assemble all the puzzle pieces of what happened to the four students and why. She became very passionate and was inspired by intuitive tarot readings Moved by the stories told) their social media footprint she decided to continue looking for the truth about the murder.; You can also look at Am. of P.L. [Statement of Facts] (Quote [admissions] (Confirmation that, after the investigation, the defendant has no other evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was involved in the murder or has any relationship with the plaintiff) [K.G.] In addition to her tarot readings)). This is not enough to create a real dispute of material fact.
To be admissible, defendant’s lay witness testimony regarding plaintiff’s conduct in connection with the alleged murder of four students must be reasonably based on defendant’s opinion and be helpful to the fact-finder. The opinion is reasonably based on the witness’s perception “based on personal observation and recollection of specific facts.” But crucially, there is no legal support for the assertion that the tarot reading was based on any objectively verifiable facts and that the defendant’s testimony could be said to be reasonable. Accordingly, defendant’s psychic intuitions, without more, could establish a genuine dispute of material fact to oppose plaintiff’s summary judgment efforts.
Ultimately, all the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute of any material fact that the defendant defamed the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as amended is granted, in part, solely on the issue of liability….
The court also allowed Schofield to amend her complaint to add a request for punitive damages:
Plaintiff has established a reasonable probability, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant acted oppressively, fraudulently, and with malice in accusing Plaintiff of having an affair with the student before ordering the murder of the student and three other students. and/or outrageous. As noted above, these statements are defamatory from a legal perspective and therefore represent a basic set of bad behaviour. Furthermore, these statements were based solely on defendant’s mental intuitions about the murder; there was never any objective basis to believe that plaintiff did what defendant publicly and repeatedly claimed.
Although the defendant eventually presented her theory about the accuser’s involvement in the murder to law enforcement, she did so only after that Ignored the plaintiff’s cease and desist letter and made her claims public on social media. Crucially, even after the defendant learned from the Moscow police station that the complainant was not a suspect in the murder, and that Mr. Koberg was arrested and charged for it, she continued to post on social media. These circumstances combined indicate that Defendant’s social media posts were primarily self-serving, motivated by viral attention online, and were of an extremely harmful mindset given the nature of the statements made about Plaintiff….
