The verdict in the Sarah Palin versus New York Times libel case is in.
A federal jury reached a verdict in Sarah Palin's lawsuit accusing the New York Times of defaming her in a 2017 editorial that incorrectly linked her to a mass shooting, a New York court official said https://t.co/BnVndRBaUi pic.twitter.com/NXiiNhYmuZ
— Reuters (@Reuters) February 15, 2022
Judge Rakoff is back in the courtroom for what is expected to be a verdict in the Palin v. New York Times case. Recall that Rakoff ruled yesterday in favor of the Times but kept the jury in deliberations.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 15, 2022
And it looks like the New York Times is officially in the clear:
News: JURY FINDS NEW YORK TIMES NOT LIABLE IN PALIN V NYT & JAMES BENNET
Unanimous verdict of all nine jurors polled.
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) February 15, 2022
And finally Rakoff says that he reached the same conclusion as the jury.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 15, 2022
We’re not going to impugn the jurors. They did what was asked of them.
But it’s very difficult to see the what the New York Times did to Sarah Palin as anything other than a brazen, nakedly partisan hit job.
And she may very well try to appeal.
New York Times found *not* liable in Sarah Palin defamation suit. She is almost certain to appeal.
— Jeremy W. Peters (@jwpetersNYT) February 15, 2022
For what it’s worth, Keith Olbermann has thoughts:
Now and forever: That woman is an idiot https://t.co/KW6UxHIE3B
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) February 15, 2022
Brilliant take as usual.
Meanwhile:
Rakoff is now recommending that members of the jury not talk to the media. It would be "unfair" to fellow members of the jury to speak about these private deliberations, says Rakoff.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 15, 2022
Rakoff says that if a jury member says no to a journalist and the journalist persists, please let him know and he will deal with it.
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 15, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member