Rakoff’s verdict comes while a jury is pondering a verdict – and Rakoff said he will allow the jury to continue to weigh and reach a verdict and will dismiss the case after did so.
Rakoff presented his findings – a clear win for The Times – with a view towards an inevitable appeals process.
The judge said Palin failed to demonstrate “genuine malice,” which is the standard her legal team must meet in her defamation case. The New York Times’ landmark lawsuit against Sullivan in 1964 specifies that public figures suing for defamation must prove that the violator knew the statement was false or displayed “reckless disregard.” truth.
Rakoff sided with The Times after hours of discussion over the publication’s petition that the Palin camp had failed to present an “adequate legal basis” for the case.
“I think this [was] an example of a very unfortunate editorial in part of the Times,” Rakoff said in court Monday. The law here sets a very high standard [for actual malice]. The court found that standard had not been met. ”
Rakoff ruled that the jury will continue to consider whether the Times should be held responsible for defaming Palin. If the jury returned with a finding that the Times was not liable, the judge specified that he would allow the jury’s decision to be upheld. If the jury finds the Times liable, Rakoff is expected to ignore his ruling and replace it with one as a matter of law in favor of The Times.
Rakoff said he was “not entirely satisfied with having to make this decision in favor of the defendants.”
Lawyers for The Times hugged each other after the decision was made in court. Palin’s attorneys were not available for comment when asked by CNN.
“The New York Times welcomes today’s decision,” a spokesperson said. “It’s a reaffirmation of a fundamental tenet of US law: public figures should not use defamation lawsuits to punish or intimidate news organizations that publish, acknowledge and quickly correct unintentional errors.”
The jury of nine, five women and four men, deliberated for more than nine hours. Rakoff made the grand jury of the day; is scheduled to resume deliberation on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
“I love this jury and wish you a happy Valentine’s Day,” Rakoff said as he told the jury to “turn away” if faced with any media reports related to the trial.
Why is an appeal expected?
Rakoff said earlier on Monday that regardless of the jury’s decision, “this is the type of case that is bound to be appealed.”
First Amendment scholars agree with him. Some heavyweight conservatives want the court to revisit the high purge established in the 1964 case. The Palin case could be a means to do so.
“Two things are going on here,” former deputy attorney general Harry Litman said on CNN Monday afternoon. “There’s a reality TV series between Palin and The New York Times.” Then, he said, “the threshold is higher” for public figures trying to sue for defamation.
Lawsuit
Palin sued the Times and former editorial page editor James Bennet in 2017 after they published an editorial that falsely linked a map Palin’s political action committee had posted to a shooting in 2017. 2011 left six people dead and former congressman Gabrielle Giffords injured.
The editorial in question was titled “America’s Deadly Politics” and it was published on the day of a shooting at a baseball practice that injured Congressman Steve Scalise. It was intended to address the heated political rhetoric before the shooting, but it falsely stated that there was an “obvious” connection between a map with slashes across congressional districts, including Giffords’, and the shooting left her injured. Bennet testified that he added language about having a clear link, and that when he realized his mistake, he worked to quickly roll out a fix.
Palin testified that she “confirmed” that the Times falsely accused her of instigating the murder of those six people, including a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl, six years after the murders. That deadly gun.
Bennet testified that he was surprised when some people interpreted the editorial saying that the man who shot Giffords and others was instigated by Palin, testifying that “that was not the message we intended to send.” .”
