Sarah Palin's libel suit against NYT will be dismissed!

[senseandsensibility]

Breaking on CNN homepage. Apparently, the judge will dismiss it after the jury deliberates.

[MaryMagdaline]

1. Wow. I know judges can do what they want but either direct a verdict or not

And if you’re going to enter an order not withstanding a verdict, don’t issue an order while the jury is deliberating … see if they find no liability first.

[senseandsensibility]

2. I updated my thread above.

Yeah, timing seems weird.

[MaryMagdaline]

3. I got what you meant.

I should say that I’m happy about the result. I just don’t like a judge not being brave enough to toss a case BEFORE it goes to a jury.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Any attorney with an eye on legal malpractice would have done the same thing:

Move for dismissal. If that didn't work, then move for summary judgment. Whatever it takes to keep the jury or the judge from making a decision.

[Hortensis]

5. "her lawyers failed to produce adequate evidence that the newspaper knew

what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly toward indications it was false." (Politico)

Judges are the "triers of law" -- they first and last decide if a case meets the requirements of the law.

Juries are "triers of facts" -- they only examine the evidence and reach conclusion of guilt or innocence, as directed by the judge, who constantly monitors the proceedings for conformity with the law.

This judge, on reviewing the evidence presented by Palin's attorneys, decided the requirements of the law had not been met. Judges make a determination of whether adequate evidence appears to exist to proceed with a lawsuit before allowing one to proceed -- as defined by the law. This one thought there appeared to be, then later based on the arguments presented decided not.

[senseandsensibility]

6. But apparently this judge allowed the trial to proceed

and will even allow a verdict before dismissing.

[Hortensis]

7. Evidence argued by the defense turned out to be less compelling

than claimed. Judicial principles and practices rule, or are supposed to. Not nuries and not their verdicts -- which are convened and arrived at under the careful instruction of the judge to keep them in conformance with the law. Or supposed to be.

Last jury I was on had a couple of jurors who never understood the judge's instructions, much less the reasons that underlay them, but the rest did so it was okay. If we had arrived at an improper decision, the judge would have been obliged to throw our verdict out. Or whatever the options would have been.