I thought this was an interesting development in the David Letterman case aka People of the State of New York v. Robert Joel Halderman, 4957-CR-2009 - the prosecution of Halderman for allegedly extorting David Letterman.
The judge denied Halderman's motion to dismiss the case based upon what is now known as the "Tiger Woods defense." Essentially Halderman is trying to understand what is the difference between his attempt to "sell a screenplay" and that of Rachel Uchitel or any of Tiger Woods' mistresses who were basically doing the same thing - giving first rights to the story to the public figure about who was the subject of the screenplay.
Prosecutors contend the defendant was "crystal clear" in his threat to ruin Letterman's career and personal life.
"Whether the defendant had a larcenous intent is a question of fact and the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to establish that element of intent," New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles Solomon in Manhattan said in a written ruling.
What's the moral of this story? I'm not quite sure. Is this a matter of choice of words? Perhaps this case might be useful in telling your children that, if you intend to extort someone famous who has friends, make sure you do it the right way by using an attorney to clearly present a publishing deal and avoid any notion of intent to injure. A very fine line indeed but an interesting one.
The judge denied Halderman's motion to dismiss the case based upon what is now known as the "Tiger Woods defense." Essentially Halderman is trying to understand what is the difference between his attempt to "sell a screenplay" and that of Rachel Uchitel or any of Tiger Woods' mistresses who were basically doing the same thing - giving first rights to the story to the public figure about who was the subject of the screenplay.
Prosecutors contend the defendant was "crystal clear" in his threat to ruin Letterman's career and personal life.
"Whether the defendant had a larcenous intent is a question of fact and the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to establish that element of intent," New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles Solomon in Manhattan said in a written ruling.
What's the moral of this story? I'm not quite sure. Is this a matter of choice of words? Perhaps this case might be useful in telling your children that, if you intend to extort someone famous who has friends, make sure you do it the right way by using an attorney to clearly present a publishing deal and avoid any notion of intent to injure. A very fine line indeed but an interesting one.
