Hope Walz Says Republicans' Obsession With Old State Flag Is Like a Racist...
Appeals Court Says Administration's Argument to Allow the IRS to Share Data With...
A Call From the 83rd Floor, a Mother’s Life’s Work, and a...
MS NOW’s New Membership Service Allows Users to Talk to Rachel Maddow, Joe...
The Actual Problem in the Clancy Mistrial Wasn’t the Holdout — It Was...
Joy Reid Couldn’t Wash It Off: Wajahat Ali Goes Shopping for a New...
Arlington County to Pay Families of Wage-Earners Detained by ICE Up to $2,000
Danbury, Connecticut City Council Votes to Allow Noncitizens to Be Hired As Police...
Caught on Tape: Nebraska 'Independent' Admits He Only Backed the Wall to Win...
Site Runs 'Hit Piece' on CA Assemblyman Who Sent $6 Million to His...
'Do Us a Favor and Stay Home': Families Confront Mamdani Over 9/11 Ceremony
CNN’s Anderson Cooper Examines the Need for Climate Justice ($$$) in Nepal
American Heroes of 9/11: Welles Crowther
Cartoon Cancer: Animated Gavin Newsom Says Having the DSA Under the Dems' ‘Big...
Prof Says ‘Someone Can Do the Funniest Thing’ to Nick Shirley Before the...

Judge in Sarah Palin defamation trial reveals that several jurors were informed of his ruling in favor of NYT *before* rendering their verdict

Yesterday, a jury unanimously found the New York Times was not liable in the Sarah Palin defamation suit.

Notably, their verdict was rendered after the judge had already ruled in favor of the New York Times:

Advertisement

It seems that some jurors actually have disclosed that they knew about Rakoff’s ruling before they rendered their decision:

OK …

Seems like there might be some things to discuss here, no?

Advertisement

Will there actually be a headache, though?

We’re no legal scholars or anything but this all seems less than kosher.

If a mistrial is declared or if Palin files an appeal, hopefully both parties can at least agree on this:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement