Althouse: "A jury returned a verdict against Sarah Palin in her libel suit against The New York Times on Tuesday..."

February 15, 2022

"A jury returned a verdict against Sarah Palin in her libel suit against The New York Times on Tuesday..."

"... finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the newspaper had defamed her in a 2017 editorial that erroneously linked her political rhetoric to a mass shooting."

The NYT reports.

30 comments:

mikee said...: Yay! Anything goes in journalonanism. Let the vileness know no limits!; 2/15/22, 1:54 PM
farmgirl said...: The NYTs crows.; 2/15/22, 1:56 PM
Misinforminimalism said...: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Questions presented:
1. Should Sullivan be overturned?
2. Just how dumb is it for a judge to announce his "intent" to dismiss WHILE jury deliberations are ongoing in a highly-publicized case?; 2/15/22, 2:00 PM
Mark said...: One step closer to the Supreme Court as her financiers intended.; 2/15/22, 2:12 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: In short. The Obama nominated judge took upon himself the role of finder of fact, taking it from the deliberating jury. Well, maybe not, since he let the jury continue to deliberate, for sake of an appeal. Not a good look for a judge who was nominated by one of Palin’s political opponents.; 2/15/22, 2:15 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The verdict reflected the reasons why the editorial was written to begin with.

It’s prejudice against her all the way down.

Hopefully, if appeals are successful, she will be granted a chance of venue.; 2/15/22, 2:24 PM
Gunner said...: The chance of a New York jury finding for Sarah Palin is about the same as Stalin's advisors telling him that Trotsky would have made a better leader.; 2/15/22, 2:25 PM
Iman said...: That’s a shame, but not unexpected.; 2/15/22, 2:33 PM
rcocean said...: So why did the judge intervene? It still makes no sense. The only explaination is that the judge was afraid the jury would find for Palin, and it would be impossible for him to strike down a jury verdict. So he struck it down preemptiviely. And to tamper with the jury verdict. How many jurors would continue their delibrations and convince a few holdouts that palin was right, when they knew the Judge would rule agains them anyway?

In any case, this just shows how impossible it is for a Conservative to win a libel suit. Proving malice seems a completely subjective standard that can be twisted anyway a jury or Judges wishes. don't like the defendent - Guilty. don't like the plaintaff? Not Guilty. That's probably why the Liberal SCOTUS set it up that way to begin with.; 2/15/22, 2:43 PM
Mattman26 said...: I wouldn't be surprised if there are some decent appellate issues to be raised.

In terms of the judge taking it away from the jury, there are plenty of well-established and appropriate bases for a judge to kill a plaintiff's case without it even going to the jury, and similar bases for deciding to enter a judgment contrary to a jury's verdict. Not worth going into detail here, but they're by and large good rules that do a decent job of respecting the jury's role while also protecting against jury decisions that might be indefensible.

But I'm still kind of gobsmacked that a judge would rule (as I think this one did), while the jury was deliberating, that he was going to rule against Palin even if the jury ruled in her favor. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, it's just not that hard to shut your mouth for a day or two.; 2/15/22, 2:53 PM
gspencer said...: This jury verdict proves, yet again, that defamation/slander/libel cases are best fought outside of a courtroom. The percentage of cases which sees success is under 10%. The percentage is even smaller with public figures.

Her lawyers should have schooled Palin - and themselves - on these hard stats. Think of all the time that went into research/writing the complaint, all the motions, the depositions, trial preparation, plus associated costs including travel and hotels, all to come out with nada at the end.; 2/15/22, 3:00 PM
ga6 said...: Cook County justice in a New York courtroom. Shocked, shocked I tell you.; 2/15/22, 3:02 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Jed Rakoff was appointed by Bill Clinton--not Barack Obama. But the Clintonistas and the Obama Choom Gang and their gaggle of "Journolistic" reporters were united in their contempt for "Caribou Barbie".

I am troubled by Rakoff's announcement of his intention to dismiss while the jury was deliberating. Jury chambers are not airtight and it's probable that word of Rakoff's intention got to at least some of the jurors.

I would not have been troubled if Rakoff had made his decision at the end of testimony and argument and not let the case go to the jury.

Or, presuming that Federal Civil Procedure allows "judgments notwithstanding the verdict"==what we call in California a "JNOV" he could have dismissed the case after the jury returned a verdict for Palin.

Instead Rakoff chose the one way guaranteed to muddle the result. He's smarter than that--so this was deliberate.; 2/15/22, 3:12 PM
WisRich said...: So the judge broadcasts the dismissal of the case for... reasons and voila, the jury comes back with the verdict the judge wanted for the same....reasons.; 2/15/22, 3:16 PM
TheDopeFromHope said...: This is a great clip from the movie Absence of Malice showing how easy it is to get away with defaming someone. That's why NYT v. Sullivan has to be changed. It also has no constitutional basis. And, BTW, the republic endured just fine up until 1964 when that case was decided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SGe-IywHXg; 2/15/22, 3:21 PM
Wince said...: Was "her political rhetoric" or a graphic that was linked by the NYT to a mass shooting?; 2/15/22, 3:21 PM
Howard said...: Can't win 'em all.; 2/15/22, 3:29 PM
Judgenick said...: Ann, what do you think?; 2/15/22, 3:31 PM
Michael K said...: In any case, this just shows how impossible it is for a Conservative to win a libel suit

Especially in a New York City court. DC juries are similar. Why do you think that idiot NY AG is trying to go after Trump?; 2/15/22, 3:34 PM
Mark said...: So, the New York Times falsely reports what actually happened:

finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the newspaper had defamed her in a 2017 editorial that erroneously linked her political rhetoric to a mass shooting

The evidence that Palin had been DEFAMED was beyond dispute. In fact, it was per se defamatory. The question, however, was whether the NYT knew the defamation was false or whether they merely didn't give a sh*t about whether it was true or not.

By reporting that they did not defame her, they are doubling down on the original defamation. AND they know it. It is malice, by whatever definition or term of art you wish to use.; 2/15/22, 3:34 PM
Richard Dillman said...: It would be close to impossible for a NYC jury to find against the NYT. The bias is built into the culture. Moreover, the non-sequestered jury had to already know that the judge tossed out the case. Holding out for a guilty verdict after the judge’s decision would seem like a waste
of time for most jurors.; 2/15/22, 3:37 PM
Richard Aubrey said...: On the up side, it is now clear that the NYT acted with either actual malice or reckless disregard. That they got away with it changes that not at all.; 2/15/22, 3:47 PM
Lance said...: So why did the judge intervene?

I had that question. From what I've been reading, had the jury ruled in favor of Palin and the appeals court overruled Judge Rakoff, there would be no need for a new jury trial. But now that the jury ruled against Palin, if she appeals and the court overrules Rakoff, they will need to hold another trial.

At least that's what I've read. Not sure it makes sense. Seems by doing it this way Judge Rakoff ensured that Palin would need to be the one making any appeal.; 2/15/22, 3:50 PM
jim5301 said...: roocean - It makes perfect sense. A judge must set aside a jury verdict that is not supported by the evidence. He said that he would do that. The jury did not know that. Assuming the jury found liability, the judge would have set it aside, and Palin would have appealed. If she won on appeal, the jury verdict could be reinstated. If the judge had interfered with the deliberations, then a new trial would be necessary.; 2/15/22, 4:16 PM
rhhardin said...: While the judge is away the malice will play.; 2/15/22, 4:17 PM
Achilles said...: A member of the corrupt system protects other members of the corrupt system.

Not really news.

Leftists are all just shitty people that tell lies like this on a daily basis.

They have to because they are just hollow people.; 2/15/22, 6:49 PM
n.n said...: The braying would have been less audacious and inclusive if she had actually aborted someone.; 2/15/22, 8:15 PM
mccullough said...: It would be enough if public figures have to prove actual damages (lost income). Negligence standard of false fact would be fine if actual damages (not presumed reputational damages).

Most public figures have zero damages when defamed.

And they should not be able to get emotional distress damages if they can’t show any lost income.

Palin has resuscitated her brand with this lawsuit.

But she never had any damages.; 2/15/22, 8:19 PM
wendybar said...: Achilles said...
A member of the corrupt system protects other members of the corrupt system.

Not really news.

Leftists are all just shitty people that tell lies like this on a daily basis.

They have to because they are just hollow people.

2/15/22, 6:49 PM

THIS^^^ 1 Million times THIS^^^^^^^; 2/16/22, 7:24 AM
readering said...: Law360 (February 16, 2022, 1:51 PM EST) -- Some jurors knew that Sarah Palin's libel lawsuit against The New York Times had been dismissed by a Manhattan federal judge before they rendered a verdict that likewise rejected the case, according to a Wednesday court entry.

In the court order, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff revealed that several jurors had disclosed that they had received push notifications on their cellphones "that contained the bottom-line of the ruling" but said the news did not sway their verdict.

"The jurors repeatedly assured the court's law clerk that these notifications had not affected them in any way or played any role whatever in their deliberations," the judge wrote.

Doubt any other judge will do something like that again soon.; 2/16/22, 1:34 PM