Rapist's Mother to Face Suit for Releasing Video of Victim

The mother of convicted rapist Andrew Luster cannot hide behind the First Amendment to avoid an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit brought by one of his victims, a California appeals court has ruled.

Elizabeth Luster knew about a protective order barring the public disclosure of a videotape of her son's repeated sexual assaults of the victim when she gave the tape to CBS Television, the court said.

Andrew Luster, the heir to the Max Factor cosmetics fortune, fled to Mexico during his 2002 trial on 87 counts of rape.

He was convicted in absentia of 86 counts and sentenced to 124 years in prison. Luster was captured by a bounty hunter and returned to California in 2003 and is now in prison.

According to the trial testimony, Luster gave three women GHB, known as the "date rape drug," which rendered them unconscious. He then raped them repeatedly while videotaping his actions.

During the trial the court issued a protective order to prevent the tapes from being released to the public and from being posted on the Internet. Only the parties and the jury saw them.

Before he fled, Luster illegally obtained possession of the videotapes in violation of the protective order, the opinion said.

According to one of the victims, who is proceeding under the pseudonym Lynn Doe, Elizabeth Luster obtained the tape of her assault and released it to CBS for viewing and copying even though she was aware of the protective order.

Part of the tape was shown on the CBS program "48 Hours."

Doe filed suit against Elizabeth Luster in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging invasion of privacy and negligence.

She argued that in view of the explicit sexual nature of the tape, which was made without her knowledge or consent, she had a legally protected right to privacy.

Elizabeth Luster allegedly had never seen the tape and did not know what it contained.

She testified that she allowed CBS employees to go through her son's home and permitted them to take a box of videotapes because the network told her during the rape trial that they wanted information to "humanize" him.

Luster filed a motion to strike the complaint, contending that she was protected by the First Amendment right to free speech and a California statute that bars lawsuits intended to suppress discussion of issues of public interest and importance.

Doe opposed the motion. She presented evidence that included the criminal court's sealing order, her own declaration and that of another rape victim, transcripts from the criminal trial, and deposition testimony from Elizabeth Luster and CBS employees, all intended to show that Luster knew about the order.

The trial court denied Luster's motion to strike, and she appealed.

Based on case law, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal held that Doe's privacy interest in preventing the public from viewing her unconscious, naked body trumps the First Amendment and the California statute.

Given the criminal judge's sealing order, Doe had shown that she had "an objectively reasonable expectation of seclusion or solitude," the appellate panel said.

The court also found that Elizabeth Luster's deposition testimony was inconsistent with her declaration in support of the motion to strike.

She had previously claimed that CBS stole the videotapes but later admitted that she gave the company permission to take the tapes.

Luster also testified in the earlier deposition that she did not know what was on the Doe tape or the other videotapes in the box, but that she knew her son had tried to get the Doe tape and that he told her the complete tape would exonerate him.

"Given the glaring inconsistencies in and inferences raised by Luster's own statements, as well as the conflicting evidence on multiple issues, if a jury credited Doe's evidence, she could prevail on her claims against Luster," the panel said, denying the motion to strike.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@Thomson.com.