Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin secured a victory on Wednesday when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted her a new defamation trial against the New York Times.
MSNBC reported that the decision comes after the appellate court identified multiple legal errors in the original trial, which centered on a 2017 Times editorial that Palin argued was defamatory.
The legal battle between Palin and the New York Times began over an editorial published in June 2017, titled “America’s Lethal Politics.”
The editorial controversially linked a 2011 shooting in Arizona, which injured then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others, to a 2010 graphic released by Palin’s political action committee.
The graphic placed crosshairs over 20 congressional districts, including Giffords’, suggesting they were targets.
The appellate court highlighted several critical errors in the initial trial, leading to the decision to grant a new trial.
Among these errors were the exclusion of key evidence, inaccurate instructions provided to the jury, and an improper response to a jury question during deliberations. The appellate panel also noted that some jurors were aware of the judge’s intention to dismiss the case under Rule 50, an issue that significantly influenced the jury’s decision-making process.
The original lawsuit was sparked by Palin’s claim that the Times editorial falsely implied a connection between her political rhetoric and the Arizona shooting. The editorial also compared the 2011 shooting to a 2017 incident in Virginia, where four people, including Rep. Stephen Scalise, were injured.
The comparison was made to suggest a broader issue of politically motivated violence, allegedly linked to inflammatory political rhetoric.
During the 2022 trial, Judge Rakoff sided with the defense and planned to dismiss the case using Rule 50, which allows a judge to rule in favor of one party if the opposing party has not presented sufficient evidence to support its case.
Despite the jury ultimately finding the Times not liable, the knowledge of the judge’s planned dismissal had already reached some jurors through push notifications on their phones, tainting the deliberation process.
The appellate panel underscored the significance of a judge’s influence on a jury, stating that a jury’s verdict could be compromised if they were aware of the judge’s stance on the case before delivering their decision. Despite this, the panel chose not to reassign the case to a different judge, expressing confidence that Judge Rakoff would maintain impartiality in future proceedings.
The editorial at the heart of the case quickly became a focal point of national attention due to its sensitive nature and the serious implications of its claims.
The Times later issued a corrective statement acknowledging that the editorial’s claim of a link between Palin’s PAC graphic and the Arizona shooting was incorrect. However, the damage had already been done, according to Palin, who argued that the editorial had irreparably harmed her reputation.
Palin’s lawsuit initially faced challenges, including a dismissal by the trial court in 2017. However, the case was revived in 2019 when an appellate court overturned the dismissal, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to trial.
The latest ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battle, with the prospect of a new trial bringing the case back into the spotlight.
In their ruling, the appellate panel expressed confidence in Judge Rakoff’s ability to handle the case impartially moving forward. Judge John Walker, writing for the panel, emphasized that the judge’s future conduct in the case would be closely monitored to ensure complete impartiality and the appearance of fairness.
This decision to allow Judge Rakoff to remain on the case was seen as a measured approach by the appellate court, balancing the need to address the identified legal errors while avoiding unnecessary disruptions to the judicial process.
The upcoming retrial represents a significant turning point in the defamation case, as both parties prepare to revisit the contentious issues that have fueled the legal battle for years.
The New York Times expressed disappointment with the appellate court’s decision but remained confident in its ability to prevail in the retrial. The case continues to raise important questions about the boundaries of free speech, the responsibilities of the press, and the protection of public figures from defamatory statements.
As the legal proceedings move forward, the case will likely attract considerable attention from both legal experts and the public, given its potential implications for future defamation cases and media accountability.
