The unexpected decision by the judge, Jed S. Rakoff, came during the second day of jury deliberations in the case. He said he would allow the jury to continue working and that if they ruled in favor of Ms. Palin he would dismiss the case. He indicated that he believed an appeal by Ms. Palin was likely, and he said that the appeals court “would greatly benefit from knowing how the jury would decide” the case.
१४ फेब्रुवारी, २०२२
“A federal judge said Monday he planned to dismiss Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times….”
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७५ टिप्पण्या:
Judge throws out the case while the jury is in deliberations?
Then why have a jury at all?
Another Democrat scofflaw judge.
If he’s going to let the jurors finish deliberating, I can’t see why he wouldn’t keep his thoughts to himself until they do. Chances of one or more jurors hearing about this, and affecting their deliberations, is way too high.
Why should the jurors put any effort into this?
I didn’t think a judge could do this once the jury started deliberating. The jury will likely hear about this, and the compromised, tainted verdict
will not be persuasive in an appeal.
Who is this judge?
Is he the judge residing over the case?
Hawaiian?
"It's all an honest mistake by the NYT" ... folks.
Honest. Really. Honest.
Everyone go home.
The editor, James Bennet did not know that his editorial about Palin was false. That much is true. The reason he didn't know that is that he lived in a liberal bubble where everyone "knew" that Palin instigated the shooting of Cong. Giffords, and so he saw no need to check his facts. Does that failure to question the conventional wisdom of the liberal bubble constitute "malice" for libel purposes? I suppose the Supreme Court will have to decide that question.
Wonder if it his usual practice not to wait for verdict when he plans to nonsuit. Probably not as obvious in most cases.
Any additional context for us from our blogger? Does this happen very often? Seems rather strange (and even stranger the defendant published it).
Progressives suck. I can't wait until the party implosion becomes an explosion. There IS no uniting us.
So the Judge does not need to cite a reason?
The smartest person in the room is doing a tremendous amount of mind reading. I mean, for a process that is foundationaly, written law, and facts. Why the need for all the parlor games?
i wonder how much that judge cost?
Re: Richard Dillman:
The jury will likely hear about this, and the compromised, tainted verdict
will not be persuasive in an appeal.
I had exactly this thought. When I first read the news, I actually saw it framed as the judge telling the jury what he was doing, but the Times article seems to be saying he is just allowing the jury to proceed, so maybe he's keeping it a secret from them (although if they aren't sequestered, what good will that do?). Seems like the kind of thing ordinary common sense would dictate you hold onto until after the verdict has come in. Rakoff has a pretty high reputation, but this just seems like a bizarre choice. I don't do courtroom practice, though, so maybe judges pull this sort of thing all the time.
Clinton appointed judge. Not surprised.
Every judge I have ever been before was highly concerned with the jury, respecting their time and efforts and the like. Never heard of one so willing to crap on a jury's time and disrespect their decision. Outrageous.
Like Jim said in the first comment. Why have juries at all when Progressive judges can do this while they are deliberating. They really hate America and want to F*CK it up as much as they can before they implode.
The editor, James Bennet did not know that his editorial about Palin was false.
Bullshit. There is no way he did not know this, his own paper had done the reporting on this. Maybe the new standard should find liability for willful blindness - it is a solid concept in IP law.
He's leaning on 'Sullivan.'
That ruling by SCOTUS needs to be burned.
How about I start a weekly flyer, become a publisher, and write about how Pelosi turns tricks in the senate coatroom to fund her ice cream supply.
Don't care if it's true or not. And it's not malicious because sex is a natural part of life...
Anybody should be able to sue the pants off of media outlets for any false story, malicious or not.
If anybody's interested; Trudeau just invoked the Emergency Powers Act. This was after the Premiers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec registered objections to him doing so.
wait a minute, ignore my last post (for now)
Let's Assume, that *i* own a Major Newspaper...
Assume i run a story, that states "Judge takes payoff, to throw case, because he's corrupt"
If(When) the judge sues me...
Can i run a retraction saying; "Opps! i ASSUMED judge MUST HAVE taken bribe, but i didn't really Know"
Then, i'd be Okay, right? I mean... RIGHT?
Sorry, Emergencies Act is the Canadian version of the Emergency Powers Act.
Jury tampering?
So, Douglas B. Levene, it's not malice if you truly believe the person is evil?
The judge foreshadowed this decision when threw out punitive damages last week.
Is this judge just trying to wash his hands of it and kick it upstairs by giving Palin a blatant excuse to appeal?
The jury will likely hear about this, and the compromised, tainted verdict
will not be persuasive in an appeal.
I forget that other people aren't as naturally contrary as I am. If I heard that he planned on dismissing the case, I'd find for her, because, why not? I'd feel that my time had been wasted. Why have the jury sit through it all, if their decision was irrelevant?
Jeff Weimer said...
Is this judge just trying to wash his hands of it and kick it upstairs by giving Palin a blatant excuse to appeal?
It seems so.
My prediction is they use this case to throw out Sullivan.
Then they start suing anyone who "defames" president ShitsHisPants or anyone in the Regime.
Joe Smith said...
He's leaning on 'Sullivan.'
That ruling by SCOTUS needs to be burned.
The problem is not Sullivan.
The problem is shitty people in the Regime and the shitty people that support the regime.
If you get rid of Sullivan the leftists will just start suing every single outlet that "Defames" them.
After the behavior of Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case, I didn't a Judge could be worse. Maybe someone can explain why Judge Raskoff (a liberal Democrat) waited till now to say the trial was over and Palin lost.
WHat possible reasonalbe justification was there for not waiting till the verdict was in? None. I get the feeling Raskoff thought dismissing the case out of hand for his friends at the NYT's would look bad. So, he let the trial continue. But shockingly, the jury might have gone for Palin, so he had to step in.
Just example, No. 1 million where the liberal/left judges and lawyers have 2 standards of jsutice. One is tempted to get upset, except the Republicans don't seem to care.
Rakoff, age 78, in 2018, initially dismissed the case, broke a few rules in order to do so, and, if I understand correctly, was forced to hold a jury trial by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Then after the trial started he denied any claims Palin might make for punitive damages.
Now he has said that he will overrule the jury if they find in Palin's favor.
It's not yet time to start refreshing that tree, but we're getting closer every day.
If a pro-democrat news outlet want to lie about any conservative, for any reason or justification, they can. Even blood libel.
The shooter never went to Palin's web-site. All sorts of candidates use language like "target." The NYT = mostly hacks and liars.
If this is a true story, in around ten years, the judge will receive a slap on the wrist, the Bar Association will pat itself on the back for their diligent effort to promote justice, and if anyone remembers the story, they will remember how they knew it would all be basically swept under the rug.
That's justice in the United States. No matter how much someone is wronged, or heinous the crime, justice is politics, and too often decided by criminals.
Unexpected.
My ass.
Blogger Rabel said...
It's not yet time to start refreshing that tree, but we're getting closer every day.
Why is it when gutless cowards like you make empty violent threats, the reckonings are always some nebulous day in the he future?
What threat?
they don't care, yes she got covid and apparently challenged the silly rules of adams which seem derived from the princess bride, he should have recused, as he denied her case initially,
Does the timing of the judge's decision violate Ms. Palin's Seventh Amendment rights?
The judge wants the case to go to the Supreme Court and this shortens the process, imo. Otherwise, in case the jury found for Palin, that would have challenged the Sullivan ruling, the NY Times would have gotten a black eye, and they would have to appeal or not depending on public relations. But I believe many in the public would be against them. Why? For one thing the mass shooting blamed on Palin took place in 2011 and the Times editorial, "America's Lethal Politics" holding Palin responsible was published in 2017. The Times editor had plenty of time to become familiar with the truthfulness or untruthfulness of his accusation against Palin. Pretending he made an innocent mistake doesn't pass the bs test. While such a logical conclusion doesn't constitute "evidence" of knowingly or recklessly publishing false information according to the judge, I don't know what else you would call it. I think the judge is afraid the jury might find for Palin and he doesn't want that to happen.
Spiros said...
Does the timing of the judge's decision violate Ms. Palin's Seventh Amendment rights?
oh! i can answer this one! Ms Palin Has NO Seventh Amendment Rights because SHE is not on trial..
The NYTs is. I suppose they could demand a jury find them guilty, but i don't see how (or why)
Blogger Rabel said...
What threat?
It's not a threat, it's a promise. Lil
Howard is seeing imaginary crosshairs again.
their previous unprofessional reporting, which covered for sheriff dupniks malicious negligence which enabled the shooter to be free, caused untold harm against her family and her person, on at least one occasion, 'supposedly responsible' social media was downright virulent
It’s a typical ruling under Rule 50, when the trial judge believes the defendant is entitled to judgment but expects an appeal. If the jury decides for the defendant, there may not be anything to appeal. If they rule for the plaintiff, no need for another trial if the appeals court views the merits differently from the trial court. That approach is especially likely in a case like this where the trial judge was reversed earlier for having dismissed the complaint on the pleadings.
If I were a juror in this case, I would not return.
A decent judge issued this decision after the verdict.
If the jury comes back for the defendant, then no need to overturn the verdict.
Either grant the motion and discharge the jury or issue the judgment after the verdict.
This is actual judicial malice.
Under the Seventh Amendment, plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to be heard by a jury (in certain cases). Procedural innovations like motions to dismiss, summary judgment, etc. are okay. But the Palin judge's timing is awful. He could have waited a day or two.
Tar. Feathers.
Re: Richard Dolan:
Thanks for the explanation.
Wasn’t it bound to be a contentious outcome? That if Palin lost, she would appeal? So- why the theater? Why not just let the jury do it’s duty- and then let her appeal if she’s dissatisfied? It seems a power play and a wedge.
Way to taint the jury, judge.
I have seen such goings on in a courtroom. Cook County Illinois Traffic Court DUI, got held in contempt when I laughed at the Judge. 1967.
Wish our esteemed retired "Constitutional Law Prof" had opined on this. Now, while I've never stayed an a Holiday Inn Express & my "law" knowledge comes from early 60's business and real estate law courses, it'd seem the "Judge's" "for the appeal" statement calls into question his decision.
Yeah, no thumb on that scale....
“The unexpected decision” sounds about as honest as the unexpectedly high inflation rate.
Quoth Firesign Theatre "Anybody got any lynch"?
RD thanks for the reminder on reversal. Explains why no SJ.
While many of us would like to read an explanation of the Seventh Amendment, Rule 50, and matters of law versus matters of fact from out favorite retired law professor it is unlikely unless someone ponies up a very healthy retainer.
It's not her job, so that's cool.
However I think we do deserve an opinion on the black leather jacket that Palin was rockin' outside the courtroom.
Some women just are just naturally sexy.
The jury is not sequestered, so tonight they will learn their deliberations are moot. It was always highly unlikely a New York City jury would have sided with Palin, regardless of how strong her case, but now there’s a decent chance it will be declared a mistrial on appeal and then we can do the whole thing over again from scratch.
I've known of Rakoff since the late mid 1970s--he was a lead Assistant US Attorney in New York City when I was dealing a fraudulent defalcation by the Treasurer of one of my company's subsidiaries. So I knew of him although I never met him. I've followed his subsequent career--he's always been a bit of a maverick,
But this piece puzzles me. He announces his decision to dismiss the case while the jury is still deliberating. He has to have known that the jury or someone on the jury would find out about his decision while they are still deliberating. And I think that shows very poor judgment on his part. He may be right on the law--but he's screwed the pooch in how he's handling his announcement.
Well, that happened.
This is judicial misconduct. I am baffled as to what his motivation for this course of action could be, other than a "take this job and shove it" moment. The appeal now writes itself. There's really no defense for the judge.
Rabel said...
“However I think we do deserve an opinion on the black leather jacket that Palin was rockin' outside the courtroom.
Some women just are just naturally sexy.”
I got your opinion on sexy women in black leather jackets. https://www.flickr.com/photos/althouse/3373290931/
Maybe I left the subject of the sentence vague just to give you an opportunity here on VD.
Don't pull a muscle.
Jurors are carefully scrutinized and examined to make sure they have no biases. Judges escape such scrutiny. Of course, if the judges were to be examined for bias, who would be presiding over the court? But maybe judges ought to be a little less high-handed and wait for the verdict from the supposedly impartial jury, before deciding to throw out a case.
Spiros said...
Under the Seventh Amendment, plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to be heard by a jury (in certain cases). Procedural innovations like motions to dismiss, summary judgment, etc. are okay. But the Palin judge's timing is awful. He could have waited a day or two.
No. This way is better.
He just makes the whole corrupt system look as shitty as possible this way.
My practice didn't involve much in the way of civil jury trials, but I do know that you can't appeal a jury vedict on the ground that the jury just got it wrong. You have to argue that the judge made a mistake, in instructing the jury on the law, or in admitting or excluding evidence, or that there was insufficient evidence to send the case to the jury. Something like that. If there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's case, the judge should have dismissed the case and not sent it to the jury. So, if this jury comes in with a pro-Palin verdict, on appeal the Times would have to claim error by the judge. But hasn't this judge admitted that he fouled up and should never have sent the case to the jury?
None of this will matter if the jury decides in favor of the Times (except for the possibility that the judge's ruling reached the jury and prejudiced them, in which I can't imagine any result other than a reversal for a new trial). But if the jury finds for Palin? The judge says he will nevertheless dismiss the case. Even in NY, I would imagine Palin's appeal would have a good chance of success.
Waiting until after the jury verdict to rule on a motion to dismiss the case is not unusual, for the reasons explained above. And ordinarily, it wouldn’t even be outrageously wrong to tell the parties during deliberations that the dismissal motion will be granted, provided there are sufficient safeguards against the parties communicating that to the jurors. But when the defendant is a large local media organization that would have an obvious interest in communicating to the jury that the judge thinks the defendant should win, it is completely irresponsible for the judge to share the prospective ruling prior to the verdict. Anybody here think Jed Rakoff failed to anticipate that the NYT would publish the information he prematurely shared?
@Meade
That's an honest-to-Benito Fascist statue. Not many of those around these parts. It doesn't look as if anyone's objected to it.
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
If a pro-democrat news outlet want to lie about any conservative, for any reason or justification, they can. Even blood libel.
The shooter never went to Palin's web-site. All sorts of candidates use language like "target." The NYT = mostly hacks and liars.
The New York Times' legal team said the editorial was an oopsy and the First Amendment protects mistake makers.
The shooting was non-political since the insane guy with a gun was incapable of rational thought.
Sarah is obviously getting all the money it takes to sue through appeals to SCOTUS - I am guessing the cash comes from Leonard Leo and the Federalists in order to weaken free speech protection as previously defined in New York Times v. Sullivan.
This “actual malice” case needs the clarification provided in a different Althouse post which pointed to “ threat-discerners, diversity-planners, bias-detectors, sensitivity-promoters, sustainability-guarantors and other beneficiaries of today’s multibillion-dollar social justice industry are doing well during the nation’s supposed apocalypse."
Put the two together and you have to see that the “social justice” approach to what people say or write means that most of today’s editorializing is unquestionably malicious but it must be “okay” BECAUSE it serves the supposedly higher good of “whatever” is the latest “we must say/can’t say” imperative.
Don Clinton:
Someday - and that day may never come - I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this judgeship as gift on my daughter's wedding day.
Indeed, there have been objections along with objections to the objections.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitoline_Wolf_Statue,_Cincinnati
Isn't the judge's decision to dismiss the case premature as he allows the jury to still consider the case? If I were a jury member and got wind of this, I would ask, "What the hell am I still doing here? Let's all go home". This would deprive the plaintiff of a fair and objective conclusion upon which to base any appeal. The judge put his thumb on the scale of justice which could hurt the chances for a fair review in a higher court.
Am I the only one who sympathized with Paul Newman and not at all with Sally Fields in Absence of Malice?
So jury agreed with Judge. Hard to see an appeal issue from this, except to say actual malice instruction legally incorrect, hoping to seek cert from summary affirmance. But if USSC wanted to revisit it would not be with this set-up.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा