(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
We know that Sarah Palin is desperate to launch herself back to the top of the GOP. Part of that includes leading the vanguard in the right-wing push to overturn the backbone of First Amendment jurisprudence inscribed in New York Times v. Sullivan. But, you know facts have been a problem for her.
Palin’s defamation case against the New York Times — for insinuating that when she put up a map with crosshairs on politicians like, for example, Gabby Giffords (who was subsequently shot) that such rhetoric is fueling violence — was always a loser. What with it being opinion and all. But still, we had a trial that was a victory for the First Amendment.
8 Tips For Creating A Comprehensive ‘AI In The Workplace’ Policy
Corporate investment and usage in generative AI technologies continues to accelerate. This article offers eight specific tips to consider when creating an AI usage policy.
That trial was overseen by Southern District judge Jed Rakoff. And his lack of understanding of push notifications created a wrinkle in what was otherwise a pretty straightforward case. Judge Rakoff dismissed the case in court while the jury was deliberating, but had the jury render their verdict to save the parties the necessity of another trial should the Second Circuit overrule him. Unfortunately, due to push notifications, some jurors were notified of this fact prior to their verdict. The jury’s verdict ultimately rejected Palin’s claims.
Palin’s legal team filed post-trial motions asking for a new trial. As reported by HuffPo:
Her attorneys had asked the judge to grant a new trial or disqualify himself as biased against her, citing several evidentiary rulings by Rakoff that they said were errors. Those ranged from how the questioning of jurors occurred during jury selection, to how jurors were instructed when they asked questions during deliberations.
But Judge Rakoff’s unimpressed. Yesterday, the judge rejected Palin’s request noting she failed to produce “even a speck” of evidence to prove the actual malice necessary to succeed at trial. He noted of his decisions during the trial, “In actuality, none of these was erroneous, let alone a basis for granting Palin a new trial.”
How LexisNexis CourtLink And Lexis Snapshot Deliver Business Wins
These tools demonstrate that information is power.
Is this pretty definitive statement on the merits of Palin’s lawsuit the last we’ll hear from the onetime GOP vice presidential candidate? We can hope so, but my guess is no.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).