Disgraced Grace and CNN sued over mother’s suicide

Back on September 7th, CNN host Nancy Grace mercilessly grilled a mother whose two-year old had disappeared, essentially accusing the mother of failing to help find her son. The day after the inquisition, the mother killed herself. Now the family is suing Grace and CNN for wrongful death.

Leaving aside Grace’s contemptible television personality, this poses an interesting legal question in an extremely sad case.

On one side, CNN/Grace will assert that the First Amendment protects them from asking questions, and further, that there was nothing preventing the mother, Melinda Duckett, from telling Grace to go stuff it and walking off the set.

On the other side, the Duckett family claims in their Complaint a fraudulent inducement to appear on the show. They claim the mother was asked to appear so that she could help publicize the kidnapping, but instead, Grace/CNN saw a 21-year old mother as an easy target to cross-examine for the benefit of ratings.

For fraudulent inducement, one needs a contract. The implied contract here would likely have been Ms. Duckett receiving the airtime to tell her story in exchange for CNN getting the interview.

If Ms. Duckett’s ability to negotiate the details of her appearance on Grace’s show were impaired by misrepresentations made to her, then the family could prevail.

Frankly, CNN should have fired Grace immediately. I guess the ratings were more important than a little humanity.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Prison Inmate Commits Suicide, And Family Sues
  2. Mother Nature Takes A Shot
  3. Michael Jackson: The Mother of All Malpractice Suits?
  4. New York’s Disgraced Ex-Chief Judge Wachtler Readmitted to Bar
  5. Morris Eisen, Disgraced NY Personal Injury Attorney, Is Also A Madoff Victim (Irony)

Tags:

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.