I was a witness!For thee accused..He had 144 child porn.I just testified that when I was around the guy ,I never saw any porn at all.I also testified that in the month of January,2009 he was In north Carolina,reason was the state had two dates that the child porn was down loaded on..I as a witness that he was not in town on those two day.I never new of all the evidence they had on him til after i testified,then i sat out in the court room and listened to the rest of the case.So all i was Say's for those day we was out of town,I had some documents that had date's on them and signature's from thee accused,he turned them over to me before he turned himself in.The state made it a fact that I made these falsified documents,forge the accused signature's,i did not,his lawyer never objected to
Personal Injury Lawyer
Generally speaking you cannot sue a Prosecutor for anything he/she says in court while prosecuting a case because he/she is given a type of legal immunity. Rules and laws vary by state. To be sure, check with a local personal injury attorney and ask for a free consultation. Good luck.
THIS RESPONSE DOES NOT IMPLY OR CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS IMPLIED OR CREATED BY RESPONDING OR FAILING TO RESPOND TO THIS RESPONSE. THIS RESPONSE DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE. FOR LEGAL ADVICE, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY.
Workers' Compensation Lawyer
It's actually not that cut and dried. There is an attorney in Northern Kentucky that was recently allowed to sue a prosecutor personally for bringing a criminal case on evidence that was arguably somewhat thin. Whether the suit will be successful remains to be seen.
That having been said, I don't know of any case law that would allow you to file a defamation action simply because of the prosecutor's cross examination of you as a witness. In Kentucky, you need to prove the following for defamation:
"In order to maintain a claim for defamation the following four elements must be established: (1) defamatory language, (2) about the plaintiff, (3) which is published, and (4) which causes injury to the plaintiff’s reputation. However, even though language may be defamatory it is not actionable if it is protected under a theory of privilege." Columbia Sussex Corp., Inc. v. Hay, 627 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Ky.App. 1981).
The prosecutor is probably acting under a privilege since he has to cross examine you to do his job. That's just my opinion - please call some local attorneys for a free consultation before you make a final decision on whether or not to sue.