Plaintiff's Idaho Murder Libel Claim Continues to Beat Defendant's "Psychic Intuition"

More in Prof. Rebecca Scofield's defamation lawsuit against alleged psychic Ashley Guillard, based on Guillard's accusation that Scofield was involved in the Nov. 2022 murder of four University of Idaho students.

From Friday's decision by Judge Raymond Patricco (D. Idaho) in Scofield v. Guillard:

This case arises out of the tragic murder of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Plaintiff Rebecca Scofield is a professor at the University of Idaho. She alleges that, despite never meeting any of these students or being involved with their murders in any way, Defendant Ashley Guillard posted numerous TikTok (and later YouTube) videos falsely claiming that Plaintiff (i) had an extramarital, same-sex, romantic affair with one of the victims; and then (ii) ordered the four murders to prevent the affair from coming to light….

Plaintiff asserts two defamation claims against Defendant: one is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff's involvement with the murders themselves, the other is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff's romantic relationship with one of the murdered students.

On June 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment …. On the issue of liability for Plaintiff's two defamation claims against Defendant, the Court concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact relating to the falsity of Defendant's statements about her. Id. (after citing evidence, stating: "This is powerful evidence at the summary judgment stage. It not only substantiates Plaintiff's argument that Defendant's statements about her are false, it also highlights the complete lack of any corroborating support for Defendant's statements.").

Under Rule 56, this shifted the burden to Defendant to dispute that claim by setting forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial relating to whether her statements about Plaintiff are true. In relying only on her spiritual investigation into the murders, however, the Court concluded that Defendant did not satisfy her burden. Id. ("As a result, Defendant's psychic intuition, without more, cannot establish a genuine dispute of material fact to oppose Plaintiff's summary judgment efforts."). The Court therefore concluded that "the totality of the evidence reveals that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that Defendant defamed Plaintiff."

Also on June 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Punitive Damages. In permitting a claim for punitive damages, the Court concluded that Plaintiff "established a reasonable likelihood of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant's conduct in accusing Plaintiff of an affair with a student before ordering that student's and three other students' murders was oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, and/or outrageous." The extent of Plaintiff's damages, if any, remains an issue for trial.

Defendant moved to reconsider, but the court said no:

Defendant claims that newly discovered evidence (in the form of filings in a related state court criminal proceeding) "provides factual support that substantiates the Tik-Tok videos [Defendant] posted regarding the murder of the four University of Idaho students …." Defendant maintains that she cannot be found liable for defamation because this newly discovered evidence proves that she was telling the truth in these Tik-Tok videos, or otherwise highlights outstanding issues of material fact that precludes summary judgment…..

Defendant argues that newly discovered evidence—revealed in a parallel criminal proceeding in state court—tracks statements made in her earlier Tik Tok videos about various circumstances surrounding the murders. For example, Defendant claims that newly discovered evidence confirms her statements about (i) how the surviving roommates were afraid the night of the murders; (ii) a dog being in the house at the time of the murders; (iii) a break-up involving one of the victims and her boyfriend; (iv) the four victims being located in two different rooms; and (v) the imminence of an arrest. From this, Defendant contends that the perceived synergy between her psychic intuition and the newly discovered evidence not only validates her separate statements about Plaintiff's role in the murders and relationship with one of the victims, but also highlights how her theories about the murders have never been proven false, and therefore her absolute defense of truth against Plaintiff's defamation claims remains plausible….

[But] the evidence does not change the disposition of the case. Absolutely nothing about this evidence suggests that Defendants' statements about Plaintiff are true. That certain of Defendant's psychic insights may have randomly coincided with banal aspects of notorious and well-publicized murders is hardly surprising. But this happenstance alone does not legitimize Defendant's perceived clairvoyance, nor can it bridge the gap between Defendant's intuition and the truth—a crucial aspect of Plaintiff's defamation claims against Defendant. Ultimately, the cited evidence is wholly unrelated to Plaintiff; if anything, it underscores that there continues to be no evidence that Plaintiff had an affair with a student or orchestrated the murders to keep that affair secret.

Defendant's insistence about how her theories surrounding the murders have never been proven false is likewise unavailing. She claims that evidence pertaining to three sets of DNA under M.M.'s fingernails, the victims' defensive wounds, and blood at the crime scene from two unidentified males, is not inconsistent with her underlying theory that Plaintiff orchestrated the murders and framed Brian Kohberger (the defendant in the state criminal action) by planting a knife sheath at the crime scene. But this misses the point. As the Court already stated, this case is not about whether Mr. Kohberger committed the murders…. "Though the Court's consideration of those issues may have touched upon a matter of criminal concern in a parallel criminal proceeding in state court, the Court never endeavored to apply the elements of murder and adjudge Plaintiff "innocent" and Mr. Kohberger "guilty." ….

Rather, this case is about whether Defendant defamed Plaintiff by repeatedly accusing Plaintiff of an affair with a student before ordering that student's and three other students' murders. On that lynchpin point, the Court concluded that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that Defendant did so, regardless of whether Mr. Kohberger—or anyone else—committed the murders. The evidence that Defendant cites in support of her Motion does not change this conclusion because there continues to be no corroborating support for Defendant's statements about Plaintiff.

Cory Michael Carone and Wendy Olson (Stoel Rives, LLP) represent Schofield.

Comments

[Roger S]

If she stuck to theorizing about publicly revealed evidence, she should have been okay. The problem is that she claims to have secret evidence, from her psychic insights.

[wvattorney13]

It will still be hard for the Plaintiff to win. How could she show that a reasonable person would take these psychic beliefs to harm her reputation? Who believes them?

[ReaderY]

Sine the plaintiff got summary judgement, the judge already concluded that her reluputation was damaged. The question for the jury is by how much. The current decision allows for punitive damages.

[mike petrik]

Hard to say. Quite a few Americans are willing to buy soap infused with the bath water of a celebrity. Luck of the draw.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Where would she be legally if she had:
1: Gone to the police with this
and when they ignored her
2: Publicly stated (a) that she had told the police who the killer was, and (b) the police refused to act

The problem I sometimes run into is a premonition that winds up factually consistent with the facts when they come out, but not the right conclusion. The FBI made a similar mistake investigating the UMass arsonist in the '80s -- it was a Black female employed by the university, it just was the *wrong* Black female employed by the university. But for the FBI, the locals would have caught the right perp, or so they told me.

My theory on this is subconscious processing of information that you don't even know you know.

[Estragon]

“My theory on this”

I thought your theory on this case was that the psychic was “half right” and that Scofield was responsible because she convinced the victims they were lesbians and encouraged one of them to dump her boyfriend.

[ReaderY]

Considering that a number of the facts were in the press pretty early on, at least some of the consistent “premonition” could actually have been a “postmonition.” Even if not, then as the judge said, consistency on a few general statements hardly shows she has any special psychic powers.

[bye]

But even were they a possessor of psychic abilities, that changes nothing. You can misuse that as you can any other ability. I don't get into assessing their existence, what is the point. And how many informants on a major case are daffy anyway

Bottom line: Interesting cocktail chatter discussing this but seems totally beyond the ken of all but the actual parties to the case.

[Bored Lawyer]

I always wonder why people who claim psychic abilities also claim to use them for the most trivial or bizarre purposes. If I had psychic abilities, I would use them to find out the winning numbers on the next big lottery.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You have to know all the numbers, not just one, and in the right order.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what lotteries Dr. Ed plays, but there is no "order" to the selections for the big ones. (There's one number that's separate from the other five, though.)

[ReaderY]

It seems to me there is a decent possibility this whole thing will be reversed on appeal. Given the increasingly broad definition of public figure, it wouldn’t surprise me if evefy university professor is now a public figure.

And if the plaintiff is one, then I think her case is toast. The defendant has done an admirably exemplary job of insulating herself from libel liability, one that others would be wise to implement. She has conducted an investigation that, exactly as the judge found, is extraordinarily unlikely to ever lead her to suspect that her statements are false. Her efforts in that regard are just brilliant and beautiful in their thorough understanding of what libel law affords a safe harbor to.

Because her investigation never uncovered any facts leading her to doubt the truth if her assertions - it COULDN’T have, that’s the beauty of it - she acted in the complete absence of actual malice. Indeed, the plaintiff seems to have pled herself right out of court in this respect.

The trial judge seems to have complerely failed to understand the nature of the First Amendment. When a public figure is involved - and essentially anyone with enough of a reputation to get much in the way of damages is one - our constitution strongly favors psychic intuitions over factual reporting. Psychics can never encounter facts that would lead them to doubt the verscity of their assertions. Because, under Sullivan, only people who encounter information that would cause them to doubt the veracity of their statements are liable for libel, only people low and clueless enough to grub in the sort of factual inquiry that Sullivan strongly disfavors (indeed, strongly discourages people from engaging in) are capable of being liable for libel. Under Sulliven, those who express opinions without engaging in factual inquiry of any kind - and psychics are perhaps the epitome of this most noble form of speech - are blessed, honored, favored, their pronouncements totally protected from libel liability of any kind. .

I would have dismissed the case and sanctioned the plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

[David Nieporent]

She's not a public figure, and it's not even a close call.