The "In Pari Delicto" defense???

[Green Lantern]

While reading the newest "US Pharmacist" issue at work (I was on break! ) I read about this for the first time. "In Pari Delicto," or "equally wrong."

The actual caselaw was a convoluted (to me) affair involving denying an antitrust claim against a group of plaintiffs because part of their suit involved importing drugs from Canada - or the lack of ease to do so.

The article pointed out that it could have more practical applications to a pharmacist, say if he accepts and fills a script that is a forgery. If the patient takes the med and has an adverse effect, the pharmacist could likely win arguing the In Pari Delicto" defense: "I didn't realize the script was forged, but if he HADN'T forged it and got it filled, he wouldn't have had the adverse effect!"

Just wondering if this could be, or has been, applied to a self-defense situation....either in criminal or civil court?

I kind of think it's pretty common to hear in a courtroom "If he hadn't been **insert illegal act here** I wouldn't have shot him!" But as far as I know, that's the first time I'd ever heard that term today.

 

[Jim March]

This sounds a lot like the "unclean hands" doctrine.

 

[El Tejon]

Green, are you talking about as applied in a civil or criminal case?

Jim, not exactly, but at equity it has a similar effect.

What is common to hear in a criminal court is a SODDI or TODDI defense.

 

[carebear]

Alright El T, let's have some de-acronymization.

I want to be lazy.

 

[Jim March]

Well "SODDI" is "Some Other Dude Did It"...

 

[carebear]

Ohhhh, some other (random) dude did it or, if caught with an accomplice(s) the other dude did it.

 

[El Tejon]

THAT OTHER DUDE DID IT=TODDI

SOME OTHER DUDE DID IT=SODDI

TODDI is usually played by the Defendant (if he is dumb enough to talk to cops). SODDI is usually defense attorney's closing.

Green, if you mean civil from your cited drug case, then it is usually now codified as "comparative fault" as a defense to liability. The jury could find the defendant say 75% at fault and adjust its award of damages from there.

At common law IPD was like the "Last Clear Chance" (plaintiff should not receover as he could have avoided damage) doctrine as a bar to recovery. IPD, in most states, has been incorporated into comparative fault regimes.

 

[Art Eatman]

Either come up with a hypothet relating all this to us at THR, or take it to APS.

, Art

 

[Green Lantern]

I suppose it could apply to a criminal OR civil case after a SD shooting, but more likely civil. IIRC, both cases mentioned in the Pharmacy mag were of a civil nature.

Hypothetical case: OK, say someone pulls a gun on me and asks for my wallet. I throw a "dummy wallet," then start backpedaling as I draw my gun. Before I can escape, he realizes that it's not a "real" wallet and gets mad. I shoot. The family sues for wrongful death.

I argue "Maybe I was in the wrong for shooting him instead of trying to run, but since HE started it with the armed robbery, you should have no right to sue me!"

Or change it to guy survives, criminal court, on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon (or whatever makes sense).

The only problem I see with it is the name itself - "equally wrong." I see NOTHING equal about the "wrongs" committed ANY time a law-abiding citizen who's minding his own business has to use force to protect himself from a criminal predator that's about to use said citizen as a disposable resource.

Maybe it would apply better if I removed the part about trying to flee, and just made it "I threw the dummy wallet then shot him as he looked down?"

But if it works...it works. Just wondering if it has worked, or how well it's worked.