Jury in Sarah Palin v. New York Times libel trial learned of judge's plan to throw out suit

[Calista241]

Source: Politico

Jurors in former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s libel trial against The New York Times became aware during deliberations that the judge overseeing the case had ruled that it should be thrown out, the judge disclosed in an order on Wednesday.

U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff said that after the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Times in the case on Tuesday, one of his law clerks learned that some on the panel had received alerts on their phones on Monday when Rakoff announced, outside the presence of the jury, that he planned to toss out the case because Palin’s lawyers had failed to prove their case to the high standard of evidence required in libel suits against public figures.

“These jurors reported that although they had been assiduously adhering to the Court’s instruction to avoid media coverage of the trial, they had involuntarily received ‘push notifications’ on their smartphones that contained the bottom-line of the ruling,” the Manhattan-based Rakoff wrote in a two-page order.

While rulings by judges to throw out a case at the close of a civil or criminal jury trial are not uncommon, many legal experts faulted Rakoff for revealing his plan in the middle of the jury’s deliberations. Doing so raised the prospect that jurors would learn of his decision and that it might prompt them to side with the Times regardless of their view of the evidence.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/16/jury-in-sarah-palin-v-new-york-times-libel-trial-learned-of-judges-plan-to-throw-suit-out-00009498

[ificandream]

1. Damn, now you know Klondike Barbie will appeal.

I wondered if they'd find out.

[Martin68]

11. She was going to appeal in any case, as the judge pointed out.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

2. Why the fuck is the jury allowed to have smart phones during deliberations? Nt

[Evolve Dammit]

6. excellent question

[ificandream]

8. That was a big mistake.

[Calista241]

16. They didn't reach an agreement on a verdict that day, so they all went home.

Then they came back in the next day for additional deliberations.

[Blue Owl]

3. The jury's gone rogue!

[P-Nutt]

4. I Wonder If

She can see Pootin now?

[ancianita]

5. Uh-oh. Could this mean a mistrial?

[former9thward]

9. No but it will raise an issue on appeal.

The case may be reversed because of the judge's error.

[inthewind21]

18. What error

He made the decision OUTSIDE of the presence of the jury. That the jury can't follow instructions and not have their phone set to get news alerts while they are serving on a jury (what part of no news did they not understand?) isn't the judges fault. If anything the jury would be the cause.

[former9thward]

20. There was no reason whatsoever to release his decision before the jury gave a decision.

That was the error. A Judge should never assume a jury will follow instructions perfectly. They are not employees.

[FSogol]

7. So what? They weren't sequestered or directed not to read the news. n/t

[former9thward]

10. So what?

The jury learned of the judge's ruling and so went ahead and found for the defendant. What is the point of deliberating the facts if a judge has already made a ruling that what the jury is doing doesn't matter.

[FSogol]

12. Palin's case had no merit and was rightfully dismissed by both judge and jury. Taking Palin's side

doesn't give her case any more merit. It will be rejected by the next court too.

[former9thward]

14. It is not a question of taking a "side"

The Times admitted they ran a false story. It was the jury's job to establish the facts. Now that is up for appeal because of how the judge handled it.

[FSogol]

15. It would have been up for appeal anyway because Palin only cares about fundraising off of attention

and slights. She's not funding her case, RW dark money is funding it. They have no reason to stop.

Plus the story wasn't false, it was incorrect and the NYT admitted it. Palin failed to show any evidence that she was harmed by the story and that was why it was thrown out. It should be easy to show she profited off the error since she is still attempting to do that.
Whining about the judge's actions is a nothingburger.

[inthewind21]

19. Not even close

Palin herself knew she wouldn't win. It's been widely reported WHY she is suing the NYT. Maybe a news push alert will fill you in.

[Calista241]

17. The case, under the current rules, had no merit.

This case is about getting to the Supreme Court, and having them revise the NYT v Sullivan case. This pretty egregious error by the judge, by announcing his decision publicly before the jury reached a verdict, and the jurors seeing that their continued deliberations were moot, almost ensures the appeals court takes up the case.

[yellowcanine]

13. I doubt it will make any difference because the judge dismissed it on the merits.

If the appellate court agrees that it should have been dismissed what the jury thinks is moot.