In a strange turn of events, a man who was convicted of Rape sued his accuser for Malicious Prosecution.
In 2002, Anthony Hunt was convicted of raping a woman in her home. She had admitted to having sex but asserted that it was forced. Hunt maintained it was consentual. At trial the jury believed her testimony and he was convicted and sentenced to prison.
After sitting in prison for four long years, the appellate court overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial. This was the result of faulty jury instructions. In the second trial, the victim wasn't quite as convincing as she was the first time around and Hunt was aquitted.
Following his acquital, he sued the victim for Malicious Prosecution. In many if not most Malicious Prosecution cases, it's the criminal prosecutor that gets sued. However, as long as there is Probably Cause for the arrest, and the Prosecutor acts in good faith within the facts and circumstances known to him/her at the time, then the Prosecutor will be sheilded from liability.
Michael Nifong, the beleaguered and disbarred former Prosecutor who handled the Duke University Lacrosse rape case might be a good source of information on how this works.
Apparently at the civil trial, the jury wasn't convinced that the victim made it all up. One would have to remember that defendants in our judicial system are found "not guilty." All that means is that guilt has not been proven. They are never found "innocent". So maybe there was some lingering doubt as to his criminal behavior. In any event, the jury just didn't agree that the victim was being all that "malicious" and maybe she had been telling the truth.
