Background
Kyle Jackson sued Catelin Dunn for defamation, alleging that she authored three anonymous posts published on Twitter in June 2020. The posts accused Jackson of sexual assault, stalking, transmitting sexually transmitted diseases, retaining and distributing nude images, and sending unsolicited explicit photographs. Jackson and Dunn had met as Howard University students, and their relationship later became contentious, resulting in reciprocal protection-order requests and Title IX complaints.
At the bench trial, Jackson, his girlfriend, and his mother testified that Dunn had separately admitted through disappearing social-media messages that she wrote the posts, but none preserved a copy. Jackson’s testimony that he received the admission through Snapchat also conflicted with a pretrial affidavit stating that he received it through Twitter. Dunn denied authoring or publishing the posts. The circuit court found Jackson’s witnesses not credible and concluded that he had failed to prove authorship, although it also considered Dunn’s credibility “highly suspect.” The court entered judgment for Dunn.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the judgment for Dunn was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court emphasized that Jackson bore the burden of proving Dunn made and published the allegedly defamatory statements. Evidence of the parties’ contentious history, Dunn’s possible motive, or the possible falsity of the accusations did not establish that Dunn authored the anonymous posts.
The trial court was entitled to reject the alleged-confession testimony based on Jackson’s inconsistent account, the absence of preserved messages, and its assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. Although Dunn had been impeached and the trial court questioned her credibility, disbelieving Dunn did not require it to believe Jackson. The appellate court declined to reweigh the evidence or make new credibility determinations under manifest-weight review.
Key Takeaways
- A defamation plaintiff must prove that the defendant made and published the challenged statement; evidence of motive or a hostile relationship does not establish authorship.
- An appellate court applying manifest-weight review gives substantial deference to a trial judge’s credibility findings after a bench trial.
- Discrediting a defendant’s testimony does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving each element of the claim.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary difficulty of attributing anonymous online statements to a particular person. Unpreserved messages, conflicting accounts, and circumstantial evidence of motive may be insufficient when the trial court finds the attribution testimony not credible.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).