A federal appeals court has revived Sarah Palin’s libel case against The New York Times, citing significant errors by a lower court judge, most notably his decision to dismiss the lawsuit while the jury was still deliberating. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan criticized Judge Jed S. Rakoff for his February 2022 ruling that prematurely terminated the trial, calling it an improper intrusion into the jury’s process.
The appeals court identified several mistakes, including the erroneous exclusion of evidence, a misleading jury instruction, and a flawed response to a juror’s question, all of which, it asserted, tainted the jury’s decision against Palin. Even so, the court rejected Palin’s request to have Rakoff removed from the case, citing a lack of evidence to prove bias.
This litigation stems from a 2017 editorial by The New York Times that falsely linked Palin’s campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting, a claim Palin argued damaged her reputation and career. The Times admitted the editorial was inaccurate but described the errors as an “honest mistake” that aimed to harm no one.
Shane Vogt, Palin’s attorney, expressed satisfaction with the appeals court’s decision, labeling it a crucial step toward holding publishers accountable for misleading content. “The truth deserves a level playing field, and Governor Palin looks forward to presenting her case to a jury that is provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law,” Vogt stated.
In contrast, Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The New York Times, expressed disappointment but conveyed confidence in prevailing at a retrial.
Judge John M. Walker Jr., writing for the appeals court, reversed both the jury verdict and Rakoff’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit during jury deliberations. Despite dismissing the case, Rakoff had allowed the jury to complete its deliberations, which resulted in a verdict against Palin. However, the appeals court pointed out that Rakoff’s decision ignored facts and inferences that could have reasonably supported Palin’s claims.
The court also highlighted an issue with “push notifications” that reached jurors’ cellphones, which unexpectedly informed them of Rakoff’s ruling. The 2nd Circuit emphasized that such notifications could undermine the trustworthiness of the verdict, given the judge’s influential role.
Concluding its decision, the 2nd Circuit ordered a new trial, citing multiple trial errors and the potential impact of Rakoff’s mid-deliberation ruling on the jurors. The court underscored the sanctity of the jury’s role in the legal system and its duty to ensure that juries are neither overruled by judges nor deprived of pertinent evidence and proper legal guidance.
