Jury Finds New York Times “Not Liable” In Sarah Palin Libel Case; Judge Had Already Planned To Dismiss Claim
A jury found that New York Times and one of its top editors were not liable in Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit, affirming a judge’s earlier announcement that he would dismiss the case irregardless of their decision.
The jury’s verdict was unanimous.
More from Deadline
As the jury continued its deliberations on Monday, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff told attorneys that he would toss out the case after concluding that Palin’s attorneys had failed to show that the Times and James Bennet, a former editor, had acted with actual malice, the threshold for proving libel against a public figure. Rakoff said that he would still allow the jury to reach a verdict because of the likelihood of an appeal.
The case centered on a June 14, 2017 Times editorial, written hours after a shooter opened fire on a congressional softball game, that delved into harsh political rhetoric and its links to violence. Bennet, then the Times Opinion Editor, said he was responsible for inserting an edit into the story that linked Palin’s political action committee to a 2011 mass shooting, in which six people were killed and Rep. Gabby Giffords was severely wounded.
The original Times editorial, headlined “America’s Lethal Politics,” read, “Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.”
In fact, no link was ever established, and the Times issued corrections. But Palin still sued.
Rakoff’s decision to dismiss the case was unusual in that he announced it as the jury was still deliberating. He said on Monday that it would be “unfair” not to do so, but there also was the risk that the jury, which was not sequestered, could have heard about his decision before they reached a verdict.
The judge found that, during the trial, Palin’s team had not met “a very high standard for actual malice”: that the Times knew the editorial sentences were wrong and published them anyway, or that they showed “reckless disregard” for the high probability that the statement was untrue. Some legal observers warned of the possibility that the case could chip away at the “actual malice” standard for libel suits, set by the Supreme Court’s 1964 ruling in New York Times vs. Sullivan.
Bennet said that the passage he inserted was an honest mistake on a tight deadline.
A New York Times spokesperson said that the verdict was “a reaffirmation of a fundamental tenet of American law: public figures should not be permitted to use libel suits to punish or intimidate news organizations that make, acknowledge and swiftly correct unintentional errors. It is gratifying that the jury and the judge understood the legal protections for the news media and our vital role in American society. We also want to thank the jurors for their careful deliberations in a difficult area of the law.”
Before the jury left, Rakoff advised jurors not to talk to the media about the case, and even suggested to them that he would take action if a reporter persisted in seeking their comments. After the jury left, David Axelrod, an attorney for The New York Times, asked the judge to reconsider that advice, but Rakoff said that he jurors “should not feel like they are now going to be subject of inquiries.”
Ken Turkel, one of Palin’s attorneys, said that they were “obviously disappointed in the verdict. We’re obviously disappointed in yesterday’s order.” He said that they would “evaluate all of our options for appeal, all our options for any further motion practice for the court at the trial level.”
Best of Deadline
Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Solve the daily Crossword
