Sarah Palin seeks new trial, judge's disqualification in NY Times case

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Former U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin asked a U.S. court on Monday for a new trial after losing her defamation case against the New York Times earlier this month, and requested that the judge overseeing the case be disqualified.

Palin's attorneys said last week they would take those steps because several jurors received push notifications on their cellphones before deliberations were over about U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff's decision to dismiss the case regardless of their verdict.

The jury rejected the Republican former Alaska governor's argument that the newspaper and former editorial page editor defamed her in a June 2017 editorial that incorrectly linked her to a mass shooting in 2011 where six people died and then-congresswoman Gabby Giffords was seriously wounded. The article was corrected the next day.

Rakoff said jurors assured his clerk that the notifications did not affect their deliberations, which lasted about two days. He said at a Feb. 23 hearing that he would issue a written opinion by March 1 explaining why he dismissed Palin's case while jurors were deliberating.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sarah-palin-seeks-new-trial-judges-disqualification-in-ny-times-case/ar-AAUr1Oe

---

Come on Mama Grizzly. Every time you open your mouth you defame yourself.

[paleotn]

1. That's going precisely nowhere.

[Grins]

7. It's going to the Supreme Court.

The aim is not “justice” for Miss Five-Colleges, but to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan.

So the Reich-wing can REALLY lie and get away with it!

[GB_RN]

13. That's HER Goal...

But the real damage would be to Faux News, "Not News" Max, One Russia News Network, Tinfoil Wars, et al.

Why? Because those outfits actually DO lie about people. Without the "malice" standard, they'd be sued out of existence. Actual news outlets don't deliberately lie about people, and when a mistake is made, they retract it, and that's the difference. If this is appealed to the SCOTUS, you can expect Faux and company to file amicus briefs in support of The New York Times (and likely surprise/outrage from the Wasillabilly that her former employer isn't supporting her).

I don't think this is a can of worms that anyone but (In)Justice Clarence "Uncle Slappy" Thomas would want to open. And IIRC, he's made mention of wanting to redo NYT v. Sullivan, but he's too stupid to foresee the consequences of his actions.

[paleotn]

16. Very very doubtful.

[Evolve Dammit]

2. Go home Caribou Barbie. Enjoy life with your seditionist, secessionist husband and dysfunctional fam

[thecrow]

14. I thought he divorced Mooselini a while back.

[COL Mustard]

3. Dear Sarah,

Please spend all your money on lawyers.

Then go away.

Thank you,
COL Mustard

[BlueIdaho]

4. A glutton for punishment.

Is she so attention starved she’s willing to pay lawyers to keep her face in the news?

[onetexan]

8. And greedy

[LiberalFighter]

5. Too bad something doesn't happen that makes her not want to continue appealing.

[Mr.Bill]

6. Go home, Sarah, you're drunk. n/t

[Emile]

9. That is what Republicans do, sue sue sue. Looking for something

for nothing.

[Vinca]

10. I hope she gets nowhere with this, but there is a point to be made that the judge

should have ruled BEFORE allowing the jury to deliberate. Since jurors received notifications of the judge's decision on their phones, there is some merit to the "new trial" pitch.

[milestogo]

11. So is she able to provide some intel on Russia at this critical time?

[Whiskeytide]

12. She probably should get a new trial. There is ...

… a huge misunderstanding by generally lazy reporters - and therefore their readers - about what happened.

The judge didn’t dismiss anything. 85% of the articles on this say he did. Those reporters are ignorant, uninformed morons.

The judge said that IF the jury found in favor of Palin, he would THEN be willing to grant a JNOV (judgement notwithstanding the verdict) motion and essentially reverse the jury’s decision and toss her case. Such a motion had not even been filed yet because you can’t file it until there actually IS a verdict.

Judges make such comments to the lawyers often enough - they probably shouldn’t, but some do. They should NEVER make such comments in front of the jury.

The grievous mistake here was that this judge made these comments during the deliberations and apparently in front of members of the press. Some members of the jury saw what he said, and that’s enough to warrant a new trial.

[Wild blueberry]

15. Who is paying her legal bills?