| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Judge to dismiss Sarah Palin case against N.Y. Times regardless of jury verdict |
| 2022-02-15 |
| NEW YORK, Feb 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge said on Monday he will throw out Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times (NYT.N), after concluding that an editorial in the newspaper did not maliciously link the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate to a mass murder. In an abrupt twist in a trial seen as a test of longstanding protections for American media, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said Palin's lawsuit must be dismissed because she failed to show the Times acted with "actual malice," the standard in lawsuits involving public figures. The judge ruled on the trial's eighth day while jurors were still deliberating, and did not inform them of his plan. Rakoff said he plans to enter a formal dismissal only after jurors, who began deliberations on Friday, reach their own verdict. Rakoff said he expected Palin to appeal, and that the appeals court "would greatly benefit from knowing how the jury would decide it." His action effectively takes the case out of the hands of jurors. "If you see anything in the media about this case, just turn away," Rakoff told them before dismissing them for the day. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #11 Its moot. Jury ruled against Palin. |
| Posted by: Chealing Chomotle4158 2022-02-15 18:08 |
| #10 Maybe it's best if it goes to SCOTUS with the result that SCOTUS throws Sullivan V New York Times out the the window. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2022-02-15 13:51 |
| #9 Judge Jed Rake-off... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-02-15 12:40 |
| #8 Wasn't this always looking for an appeal, and does this prevent that by being dismissed? |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2022-02-15 12:23 |
| #7 Then the Queen of Hearts bellowed, "Sentence First! Then the verdict, and then trial by jury!" |
| Posted by: Merrick Ferret 2022-02-15 10:22 |
| #6 Palin's lawsuit must be dismissed because she failed to show the Times acted with "actual malice," Definitely not a lawyer, but isn't that the question the jury is supposed to decide? There is some lawyerly buzz floating around about how dismissing the case while still directing the jury to deliberate is not weird, no matter how weird it sounds. I don't get it. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2022-02-15 10:19 |
| #5 UniParty, Oligarchs, FB-eye, Black Lies Murder: above the law Deplorables, ordinary whites: below the law |
| Posted by: Merrick Ferret 2022-02-15 09:30 |
| #4 The 14th Amendment - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Once again our life sitting autocrats ignore the plain language of 'the' law. You can not have two standards of law, one for public and one for private persons. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2022-02-15 07:48 |
| #3 Total shitshow. USSA now |
| Posted by: Merrick Ferret 2022-02-15 02:28 |
| #2 Of course. When an election can be won without voters, who needs a jury for a case? |
| Posted by: Dron66046 2022-02-15 02:16 |
| #1 The judge ruled on the trial's eighth day while jurors were still deliberating, and did not inform them of his plan. Sensed a conviction was eminent did he ? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2022-02-15 02:06 |