Trump Requests Dismissal of Central Park Five Defamation Lawsuit.
Donald Trump has requested that a federal judge in Pennsylvania dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by members of the Central Park Five, which stems from remarks he made during a presidential debate earlier this year.
He contends that the plaintiffs are misrepresenting constitutionally protected “political rhetoric” and “substantially true” statements as defamation. In a motion filed on Wednesday to dismiss the complaint, Trump asserted that his comments regarding the individuals were simply a reflection of “the opinion that he had held” following their 1989 arrests, specifically that he believed they were guilty.
Lawsuit
The motion states, “Plaintiffs now attempt to recast political rhetoric and debate about criminal justice and public safety as ‘defamation.’ This ignores well-established First Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards the President-elect’s speech on matters of public interest. The plaintiffs’ claims do not satisfy the necessary elements for defamation, as President-elect Trump’s statements, when considered in context, were protected opinions based on true disclosed facts, lacked any defamatory impact, and were substantially true.”
Trumps Comments
Trump further contended that additional allegations of false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress should also be dismissed for similar reasons. In the complaint, Antron Brown, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Korey Wise, and Yusef Salaam assert that during his debate with Kamala Harris, Trump “falsely stated that Plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime.” Defense attorney Karin Sweigart noted in her letter to U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone that “Plaintiffs allege that these statements, which pertain to public safety and criminal justice, constitute defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
However, these claims fail on both procedural and substantive grounds, and Plaintiffs’ attempt to use the courts to suppress political discourse is prohibited by Pennsylvania law.”
Latest: TikTok Hires Former Trump Administration Lawyer for Supreme Court Appeal
The discussion in question arose when Harris asserted that throughout his life and career, Trump has “sought to exploit race to create divisions among the American populace.” She cited as an example the full-page advertisement he published in The New York Times and other outlets in 1989, which called for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent — the Central Park Five.
In response, Trump remarked, “They come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when many people, including Mayor Bloomberg, concurred with me regarding the Central Park Five.” “They admitted — they stated they pled guilty. And I remarked, well, if they pled guilty, they severely harmed a person, ultimately leading to a death,” he continued. “And if they pled guilty — then they claimed we’re not guilty.”
Latest: Hannah Kobayashi Found After Month-Long Disappearance in Mexico
The complaint indicated that these statements were “demonstrably false.” “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to any crime and were later exonerated of all wrongdoing. Additionally, the victims of the Central Park assaults were not killed,” the lawsuit asserted.
The motion to dismiss
In a filing on Wednesday, Trump contends that his remarks — which reached approximately 67 million viewers — are safeguarded by Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP statute, as he is being sued “for a matter of public interest.” Anti-SLAPP refers to “Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,” and such legislation aims to protect individuals from being intimidated or silenced by the threat of costly litigation.
The motion to dismiss argues that it is “beyond dispute” that Trump’s comments during the debate represent speech on “matters of public concern,” particularly regarding crime, punishment, policing, and “race and politics in this country.”
Trump contended that his remarks do not constitute defamation, as he was simply articulating his reasoning for placing the advertisement in The New York Times, which he characterized as being “about crime and punishment.” He asserted that following Harris's accusation of him advocating for the execution of the Central Park Five, he clarified that the ad was taken out because “at that time, Plaintiffs had admitted guilt to heinous crimes.” “The Plaintiffs acknowledge this as a true fact,” the motion indicates. “President-elect Trump presented his debate comments as his interpretation of the evidence available to him in 1989.”
Latest: Who is Luigi Mangione, Suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder?
The document further emphasizes that Trump did not contest Harris's claim that the members of the Central Park Five were ultimately exonerated. The president-elect further maintained that his statements could not be deemed defamatory as they were “substantially true,” arguing that the distinction between formally pleading guilty in a court of law and “admitting guilt” is merely a matter of legal terminology. “Plaintiffs claim that President-elect Trump defamed them by asserting that they had ‘pled’ guilty to the Central Park Assaults in 1989, when in reality, Plaintiffs had ‘admitted’ guilt regarding the assaults,” the motion explains. “In essence, Plaintiffs take issue with the technically inaccurate application of the legal term ‘pled.’
However, the assertion that Plaintiffs initially ‘pled’ guilty rather than ‘admitting’ guilt represents a technical inaccuracy within the inherently complex realm of criminal law that ‘cannot serve as the foundation for a defamation claim.’” Moreover, the motion argues that when Trump stated, “if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately,” it does not amount to defamation, even though no one was killed in the incident, as one of the victims was described as being “virtually dead.”
Background on the Central Park Five
In 1989, the then-teenagers were falsely accused of raping Trisha Meili while she was jogging in Central Park.
While in police custody, the plaintiffs endured prolonged periods of coercive interrogation, conducted under duress, without the presence of legal counsel and often lacking a parent or guardian, as detailed in the lawsuit. Initially, the plaintiffs denied any involvement in the Central Park assaults. However, after extensive interrogation, four of them consented to provide written and videotaped statements in which they falsely confessed to being present during the incidents.
Subsequently, the Central Park Five faced trials, consistently asserted their innocence, were convicted by juries in 1990, and sentenced to prison. They were ultimately exonerated decades later when the actual perpetrator, Matias Reyes, confessed to the crime against Meili, and DNA evidence "conclusively" established Reyes as the "true perpetrator," according to court documents. The lawsuit emphasized that the plaintiffs had no involvement in the assaults and that their statements were obtained through coercion and duress. It noted that all plaintiffs recanted their coerced statements shortly after the interrogations. Ultimately, the Central Park Five were exonerated, their convictions were overturned, and New York City agreed to settle a lawsuit for $41 million.
Latest: Bankruptcy Judge Blocks Sale of Alex Jones' Infowars to The Onion
Donald Trump's legal team argues that his comments during the 2020 presidential debate about the Central Park Five were protected under the First Amendment as political rhetoric. Trump claims that his statements were based on opinions formed in 1989, reflecting his belief in the guilt of the five men involved in the infamous case. The plaintiffs, however, contend that his remarks were defamatory and false, as they were exonerated years later. The outcome of the motion to dismiss will have significant implications for the intersection of free speech, defamation law, and public discourse on sensitive issues.
