Yesterday, a jury unanimously found the New York Times was not liable in the Sarah Palin defamation suit.
Notably, their verdict was rendered after the judge had already ruled in favor of the New York Times:
Judge Rakoff is back in the courtroom for what is expected to be a verdict in the Palin v. New York Times case. Recall that Rakoff ruled yesterday in favor of the Times but kept the jury in deliberations.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 15, 2022
It should be pointed out here that Rakoff has a bit of conflict here: He announced a directed verdict while the jury was deliberating, and it's possible that a juror could disclose that they knew about his conclusion.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 15, 2022
It seems that some jurors actually have disclosed that they knew about Rakoff’s ruling before they rendered their decision:
Breaking:
Judge Rakoff alerts the parties in Sarah Palin v. New York Times that jurors alerted the clerk that they received push alerts informing them of his ruling.
They insist it didn't affect their verdict.
Background, @LawCrimeNews https://t.co/vdolt7McF2 pic.twitter.com/QzAfs0sh5P
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) February 16, 2022
OK …
Several jurors in the Palin trial reported that they learned of Rakoff’s decision to toss the case, even as they were deliberating … pic.twitter.com/RMCIKkvwzH
— Sarah Ellison (@sarahellison) February 16, 2022
Judge Rakoff is inviting either party to give him a call if they want to discuss this development pic.twitter.com/GDoBSfDdlx
— Sarah Ellison (@sarahellison) February 16, 2022
Seems like there might be some things to discuss here, no?
The judge no doubt "reserved decision" right after the motion was made. A good trial judge would have kept quiet and waited for the jury to render its verdict. He said he then thought about it over the weekend. By speaking WHILE THEY WERE DELIBERATING, he invited this issue.
— Bob L (@rmlef) February 16, 2022
Recommended
Honestly, Rakoff deserves the headache that's about to come for doing what he did https://t.co/p6Y97Xe5gD
— LB (@beyondreasdoubt) February 16, 2022
Will there actually be a headache, though?
Absolutely wild that neither party objected. https://t.co/HXA6RnIiJx
— LB (@beyondreasdoubt) February 16, 2022
We’re no legal scholars or anything but this all seems less than kosher.
Getting a mistrial is incredibly hard, but this is how it starts. Of course, juror misconduct won’t matter if the judge is right on the law and his claim that Palin submitted no evidence of actual malice. If she submitted even some evidence of malice, a mistrial is more likely. https://t.co/4IpoS6AcE0
— Ken Gardner (@KenGardner11) February 16, 2022
If a mistrial is declared or if Palin files an appeal, hopefully both parties can at least agree on this:
Maybe the potential retrial should be assigned to a different judge? https://t.co/gX6gNeepK6
— Andy Grewal (@AndyGrewal) February 16, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member