Sarah Louise Palin + Todd Trig Bristol Willow Track & Hunky Levi Johnston

[bob]

Still don't understand what advantage there was/is for the judge to have announced this before the verdict. The jury doesn't know, right? Why wouldn't the judge just wait?

The judge's timing has confounded the usual talking heads.

Especially because Palin will inevitably add the judge's timing to the appeal. And there's the possibility a juror will learn of the judge's ruling (intentionally or otherwise).

[Luke]

Thanks, Bob. In all the cases we've watched, don't remember this happening so it's surprising. Just don't get the why of this when it would be easy to get the verdict then announce it. Maybe the judge will explain it after the verdict, which is taking a while.

[Maybenaut]

I can think of one reason the judge might want to announce it now. If he waits and the jury rules in favor of Palin, then he sets it aside, folks (the right wing media) would complain that he ruled the way he did because he disagreed with the verdict.

By announcing his prospective ruling now, he’s saying it really doesn’t matter what the jury thinks - the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.

And he doesn’t want to dismiss until there’s a verdict, because if he’s wrong about that, they’d have to try the case all over again. If the jury rules in Palin’s favor, she can appeal the legal sufficiency ruling. If the jury rules in NY Time’s favor, the only thing she can appeal are any preserved issues unrelated to the legal sufficiency of the evidence.

[bob]

I can think of one reason the judge might want to announce it now. If he waits and the jury rules in favor of Palin, then he sets it aside, folks (the right wing media) would complain that he ruled the way he did because he disagreed with the verdict.

Of course. But that's not a legal basis; more of a public perception/legitimacy basis. (To which even federal courts are not immune.)

[Maybenaut]

I can think of one reason the judge might want to announce it now. If he waits and the jury rules in favor of Palin, then he sets it aside, folks (the right wing media) would complain that he ruled the way he did because he disagreed with the verdict.

Of course. But that's not a legal basis; more of a public perception/legitimacy basis. (To which even federal courts are not immune.)

Well, right. But he doesn’t have to have a legal basis. Whether to announce it now is certainly within his discretion, and I think preserving the legitimacy of the Court is probably more of a concern lately than it has been in the past.

[AndyinPA]

CNN reporting Sarah lost.

[raison de arizona]

FoxNews is very confuzzled, but they are sure that this is going to the Supreme Court to revisit the 1964 decision because Sarah Palin was VERY UPSET at the NYT story and just because she is a public figure doesn't make it ok. And they are reporting that she is going to make a statement at some point here.

[RVInit]

Normally if it was a criminal case (of course, this was not a criminal case), after the prosecution put on their case it seems like I usually see the defense put in a motion for the judge to throw it out due to prosecutor not meeting the burden, supposedly at all. I don't think I've ever seen this work, but there must be times it does work, even if extremely rare. But, I think in that case if the judge agreed with the defense, wouldn't they normally grant the motion and then the jury doesn't even have to decide? Is this different just because it's not a criminal case? Or do different jurisdictions have different rules?

I would think it would be confusing and cause lots of screaming if the judge decided New York Times is not guilty/liable and the jury decided they were guilty/liable. That seems like it could have happened in this case, even if not likely.

[Luke]

Thanks for that! Just found some Erik Wemple tweets about it too also.

ErikWemple @ErikWemple·23h A lot of people are asking why Judge Rakoff would decide this case while the jury is still deliberating. Very good questions. Here's what he said:
"The more I thought about it over the weekend, the more I thought that [waiting] was unfair to both sides," he said. "We’ve had very full argument on this. I know where I’m coming out and I ought to therefore apprise the parties of that."
"On the other hand," said Rakoff, "this is the kind of case that will inevitably go up on appeal and the court of appeals will greatly benefit from knowing how the jury decided."
"So, for example, if I were to dismiss the case as a matter of law for failure to prove an essential element and the jury were to decide the contrary," he said, "then on appeal, the court of appeals wouldn’t have to send it back for a new trial. They could reinstate the verdict."

And yup, Sarah Louise lost.

New York Times found not liable in Palin defamation case
BY DOMINICK MASTRANGELO - 02/15/22 02:40 PM EST 972

A jury found The New York Times not liable after the news organization was sued by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) over an editorial it published linking her to a mass shooting in 2011.

The jury's decision Tuesday, which was unanimous, came a day after the judge in the case indicated he would dismiss the lawsuit against the newspaper, saying Palin's attorneys produced a lack of evidence to suggest the news organization acted recklessly or knowingly published false material about her.

"I think this [was] an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of The Times," U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff said in court on Monday. "The law here sets a very high standard [for actual malice]. The court finds that that standard has not been met."
***
The Times has not lost not lost a libel case in an American courtroom in at least 50 years, the newspaper noted.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5943 ... libel-case

[bob]

But, I think in that case if the judge agreed with the defense, wouldn't they normally grant the motion and then the jury doesn't even have to decide? Is this different just because it's not a criminal case?

Yes, it is different because it isn't a criminal case.

If the jury finds for the plaintiff, but the trial court dismisses the case, and then the appellate court reverses the trial court's decision, the jury's verdict is retained (and enforced).

Here, because the jury found for the defense, the judge need not rule. The plaintiff on appeal, of course, can still appeal the judge's adverse rulings.

[SuzieC]

A successful appeal just got more difficult.

[RVInit]

Thanks Orly and bob! That reasoning makes sense. For a criminal case the defense would have no reason to appeal, (duh!) and the prosecutor can't appeal when they fail to meet their burden. Duh! I wasn't thinking it all the way through I guess.

[bill_g]

Skeletor offering her reaction to the jury verdict.

[Frater I*I]

Normally if it was a criminal case (of course, this was not a criminal case), after the prosecution put on their case it seems like I usually see the defense put in a motion for the judge to throw it out due to prosecutor not meeting the burden, supposedly at all. I don't think I've ever seen this work, but there must be times it does work, even if extremely rare.

I have, a SovCit that has been mentioned around here before, Jeffery Weinhaus. One of his charges was making threats against to court personnel, after the prosecution rested it's case, Whineyhaus' lawyer motioned to dismiss all charges, the judge agreed that state had failed to prove the threat charge, the rest remained. He was found guilty of attempted assault of a L/E, 1st degree criminal action and is enjoying a 30 year vacation in state prison....

[Kriselda Gray]

Normally if it was a criminal case (of course, this was not a criminal case), after the prosecution put on their case it seems like I usually see the defense put in a motion for the judge to throw it out due to prosecutor not meeting the burden, supposedly at all. I don't think I've ever seen this work, but there must be times it does work, even if extremely rare. But, I think in that case if the judge agreed with the defense, wouldn't they normally grant the motion and then the jury doesn't even have to decide? Is this different just because it's not a criminal case? Or do different jurisdictions have different rules?

I would think it would be confusing and cause lots of screaming if the judge decided New York Times is not guilty/liable and the jury decided they were guilty/liable. That seems like it could have happened in this case, even if not likely.

I know of one criminal case where it kind of worked. When Alex Lifeson, Rush's guitarist, was arrested at a New Year's Eve party in Naples, FL there were a lot of problems with how the hotel security manager and cops handled the situation. Basically, the security manager lied about the conduct of Lifeson and his son, making it seem much more than it had been, and the cops were overzealous, punching Lifeson in the face, breaking his nose, causing him to fall down a flight of stairs and then tazing him 4 times while he lay face down on the floor. He was charged with assaulting an officer and faced 15 years in prison. The charge stemmed from his fall down the stairs. The cops claimed he pushed an officer down the stairs, while an eyewitness said he accidentialy knocked her down as he was falling.


The prosecution divided the cases in two - one against his son's wife and another against Lifeson and his son. The wife's trial went first, and at the end of the prosecution's presentation, the defense asked that the case be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, and the judge agreed. In the case against Lifeson and his son, after the prosecution finished its case, and before the defense could make its dismissal motion, the judge told the prosecuters they needed to reach some kind of deal. They ended up having Lifeson and his son taking a plea of no contest, with a sentence of six month probation - which the judge suspended - and which would be expunged from their records if they had no further legal trouble for 6 months. After 2 months, the court discharged their probation and had their records expunged.

[scirreeve]

Normally if it was a criminal case (of course, this was not a criminal case), after the prosecution put on their case it seems like I usually see the defense put in a motion for the judge to throw it out due to prosecutor not meeting the burden, supposedly at all. I don't think I've ever seen this work, but there must be times it does work, even if extremely rare.

I have, a SovCit that has been mentioned around here before, Jeffery Weinhaus. One of his charges was making threats against to court personnel, after the prosecution rested it's case, Whineyhaus' lawyer motioned to dismiss all charges, the judge agreed that state had failed to prove the threat charge, the rest remained. He was found guilty of attempted assault of a L/E, 1st degree criminal action and is enjoying a 30 year vacation in state prison....

But Rudy and Matt say that Whine House will be exonerated any day now (they have been saying that for years).

[tek]

But Rudy and Matt say that Whine House will be exonerated any day now (they have been saying that for years).

Off Topic

But Donnie pissed off Rudy, so the alliances among the mean girls are shifting

[TheNewSaint]

U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff said in court on Monday. "The law here sets a very high standard [for actual malice]. The court finds that that standard has not been met."

This is the important part. Libel cases are almost impossible to win in the United States. I would wonder why Palin bothered, but we all know why: she's ignorant enough not to know that. Or listen to any lawyer who tries to explain it to her. And because she can spin any defeat as "biased liberal judges" etc. I can see the Fox News segment already.

[Volkonski]

Adam Klasfeld@KlasfeldReports·8mDEVELOPING:

'Several' Jurors Who Rejected Sarah Palin's Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Received Push Alerts Telling Them the Judge Dismissed It https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/se ... missed-it/… via @lawcrimenews

[raison de arizona]

U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff said in court on Monday. "The law here sets a very high standard [for actual malice]. The court finds that that standard has not been met."

This is the important part. Libel cases are almost impossible to win in the United States. I would wonder why Palin bothered, but we all know why: she's ignorant enough not to know that. Or listen to any lawyer who tries to explain it to her. And because she can spin any defeat as "biased liberal judges" etc. I can see the Fox News segment already.

The conservative pundits are opining that it is time for the Supreme Court to revisit NYT v. Sullivan and that this is the vehicle.

FWIW.

[tek]

'Several' Jurors Who Rejected Sarah Palin's Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Received Push Alerts Telling Them the Judge Dismissed It

cluster.jpg (67.5 KiB) Viewed 1167 times

[noblepa]

Adam Klasfeld@KlasfeldReports·8mDEVELOPING:

'Several' Jurors Who Rejected Sarah Palin's Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Received Push Alerts Telling Them the Judge Dismissed It https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/se ... missed-it/… via @lawcrimenews

IANAL, but is it not normally the case that it is difficult or impossible to successfully appeal an adverse verdict on the grounds that they jury simply got it wrong? It is my understanding that you have to show that the court made errors of law, such as allowing evidence it shouldn't have, or disallowing evidence that should have been admitted. Misconduct by the judge or prosecutor can also be grounds for a successful appeal.

However, if it is true that the jurors knew that the judge had stated that he would dismiss the case despite a jury's finding in Palin's favor, could the judge's statement be construed as misconduct or a mistake in civil procedure ; that the jury was improperly influenced by his promised action. And could that mistake then form the basis for a successful appeal, which I imagine would mean a new trial, since there is no pro-Palin verdict to reinstate.

[bob]

Short of a smocking gun, like a juror saying (out loud and in front of witnesses), "I'm voting for the defendant only because the judge already has dismissed the case," it'll be hard to prove prejudice.

What goes on in the minds of jurors is almost always off-limits.

[northland10]

Well, now I am seriously considering running to the nearby gas station in the rain and getting some Ben and Jerry's.

[RTH10260]

Adam Klasfeld@KlasfeldReports·8mDEVELOPING:

'Several' Jurors Who Rejected Sarah Palin's Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Received Push Alerts Telling Them the Judge Dismissed It https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/se ... missed-it/… via @lawcrimenews

shouldn't they have had their phones shut off during the trial proceedings