On yesterday's JJ, a man sued his former coworker for having him falsely arrested for sexual misconduct. Initially, the defendant's claims seemed valid, until JJ uncovered a number of inconsistencies in her story, and a history of addiction and theft.

The plaintiff had been acquitted of all charges in a criminal court. It turns out that the defendant had made the allegations against him only after she had been accused of stealing money from the store in which they were working. Her, the defendant admits that her employment was being "watched by the state" after she had failed multiple drug tests—one while pregnant—and had her child taken away from her. If she were to be fired from the hardware store, she'd be in trouble with the state again.

In a civil court, the burden of proof for the plaintiff was much heavier than "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, when he played audio excerpts of testimony at his trial—in which it was revealed that the defendant had been accused of stealing money at her three previous jobs—JJ had come to her decision. She awarded the plaintiff $2500, not because of the defendant's questionable history, but because she had made statements under oath in the first trial that contradicted her statements under oath in JJ's court.