
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A hypothetical legal case where rhonda miller, a stuntwoman, accuses arnold schwarzenegger of molestation during a movie set. Schwarzenegger's campaign responds by distributing false information about miller's criminal history to reporters. Miller is suing for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This memo will argue the case from both perspectives: as attorney for miller and as attorney for schwarzenegger and his campaign.
Typology: Exams
1 / 1
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Test II, Part II Open-Book Essay (50%) Miller v. Schwarzenegger and The Schwarznegger Campaign The day before the recall election involving Governor Davis in California, Rhonda Miller was among those women who accused Mr. Schwarzenegger of molestation-- many years in the past. Specifically she claimed “the actor had lifted her shirt and assaulted her on a movie set.” The accusations were made in a news conference in which she appeared. Ms. Miller is a stuntwomen by profession. Mr. Schwarzenegger apologized before the election for “behaving badly sometimes” and admitted that he had been on “rowdy movie sets.” Mr. Schwarzenegger and his campaign denied that the specific incidents alleged by Ms. Miller had happened. Hours after the news conference in which she made the accusations, a member of Schwarzenegger’s campaign sent an email to reporters. The email directed reporters to a court web site. The email had an attachment of a scanned photo of Ms. Miller and explained that the web site would have records posted indicating that Ms. Miller had a history of prostitution, drug crimes and disorderly conduct. There were postings regarding the prostitution, drug and disorderly conduct history of a Rhonda Miller. However, the Rhonda Miller in question was not the stuntwoman but another Rhonda Miller. The stuntwoman had no arrests or convictions for any crimes. She is suing Mr. Schwarzenegger and his campaign for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Prepare a memo about how you will argue the case: A. As attorney for Miller OR B. As attorney for Schwarzenegger and his campaign If you choose A., discuss how you will handle the proof: is it defamation, is the public-private distinction relevant, is malice involved, what damages may be argued for? Can you also sue for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress? Relate the facts of this case to the relevant cases we have studied. Point out any areas where you might expect to run into difficulty with your case. If you choose B., discuss how you will handle the defense. Consider the public- private distinction, malice, and damages. How will you respond to claims of privacy invasion and intentional infliction of emotional distress? Relate the facts of this case to the relevant cases we have studied. Point out any areas where you might expect to run into difficulty with your argument.