Nevada Supreme Court’s Mixed Ruling on #TheyLied Sexual Assault Defamation Case Filed by Nickolas Carter of Backstreet Boys

The case of Ruth v. Carter, decided by the Nevada Supreme Court, revolves around allegations of sexual assault and subsequent counterclaims for defamation. Plaintiff Shannon Ruth accused Nickolas Carter of sexual battery, claiming the assault occurred after a Backstreet Boys concert in 2001. Ruth’s complaint included allegations that Carter was a “serial” rapist, having assaulted not only her but several other women as well. Carter responded with counterclaims of defamation, asserting that Ruth’s statements harmed his reputation. The central legal issue hinged upon Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes, designed to protect free speech by allowing for the dismissal of claims that are based on good faith communications related to public concern.

To evaluate the application of the anti-SLAPP statute, the court employed a two-prong analysis. Initially, it assessed whether Carter could demonstrate that Ruth’s allegations against him constituted good faith communications related to a matter of public concern, thus qualifying for protection under the statute. If Carter satisfied this first prong, the burden would then shift to Ruth to show that she had a reasonable chance of prevailing in her case against Carter’s defamation counterclaims. The court noted that, despite the nature of the dispute, the specifics of Ruth’s claims needed to be evaluated carefully under the law governing anti-SLAPP protections.

Upon review, the court determined that Ruth’s allegations regarding her assault were not subject to dismissal under the statute. The primary consideration was whether Ruth communicated her statements in good faith, meaning she had reasonable grounds to believe her claims were truthful when made. Ruth submitted an affidavit asserting the truth of her allegations based on her personal knowledge. Carter contested this by providing affidavits from witnesses supporting his claim that the incident never occurred as Ruth described, including evidence that would preclude any chance of her being alone with him following the concert due to security protocols implemented by the band.

Furthermore, Carter presented a host of contradictory evidence, including accounts from witnesses claiming that there were no autograph lines after the concert and that Ruth might not even have attended it. He also highlighted inconsistencies in Ruth’s past communications, including a previous acknowledgment that she was not seriously harmed by Carter. The court highlighted the need to evaluate this contradictory evidence seriously, leading to the conclusion that if believed, Carter’s assertions demonstrated that Ruth made her allegations with knowledge of their falsehood, thereby undermining her claim of good faith.

On the other hand, the court ruled differently concerning Ruth’s claims about Carter being a serial rapist and abuser of multiple people. The evidence presented by Carter did not adequately refute Ruth’s assertions about other alleged victims of his misconduct. Since other women had come forward with similar accusations against Carter prior to Ruth’s statements, the court found that Ruth could reasonably claim her statements were truthful or at the very least, made without knowledge of falsity. Given this context, Ruth established a prima facie case of good faith in her statements regarding Carter’s behavior towards other individuals.

Lastly, regarding the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis—whether Carter could prove actual malice—the court found that he had not met the necessary burden of clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate that Ruth’s statements were made with reckless disregard for their truth. Although he attempted to question Ruth’s credibility and portrayed her as part of a conspiracy to defame him, the court determined that the evidence supplied was insufficient to categorically establish Ruth’s malicious intent. Ruth’s belief in her claims and the prior existence of allegations against Carter by others played a significant role in the court’s ruling, ultimately leading to the conclusion that only part of Carter’s defamation counterclaims should proceed while dismissing those linked to Ruth’s allegations against him.