July 3, 2022

The jury will continue to hear Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against the Times

The jury continued Tuesday to hear Sarah Pauline’s defamation suit against The New York Times.

A The federal judge said Monday He planned to dismiss the case, ruling that Ms Pauline’s legal team had failed to meet the highest legal standards required to prove that she had been slandered when the newspaper was published. 2017 Editorial Misrepresents his political rhetoric with a mass shooting.

That decision added an unexpected and unusual twist, with the arbitral tribunal still deliberating. Judge Jet S. Ragoff said he would allow the jury to continue to weigh the arguments of both sides. If the verdict is in favor of Ms Pauline, their verdict will be quashed and the case will be dismissed, he said.

The judge pointed out that he understood that his word would not be the last in this case. Ms Pauline, a former Alaskan governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, is likely to appeal. His decision to allow the jury to continue to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion was intended to avoid any complications if the case was heard by the Court of Appeal.

In the bench’s lengthy comments, Judge Rakoff said he did not believe Ms Pauline’s lawyers had submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate their defamation claims.

A major Supreme Court case since 1964, The New York Times v. SullivanMs. It was established that a public figure like Pauline would have to prove that a news organization acted with “real malice” in publishing false information, i.e. irresponsible negligence to the truth or knowing that the information was false.

“The law sets the highest standard for real harm and the court has found that it does not meet the standard in this case,” he said.

But Judge Rakoff blamed The Times for the series’ poor results.

“This is an example of a very unfortunate editorial in The Times,” he said, adding that he was “not too surprised” by Ms Pauline’s case. “But that being said, it’s not an issue before this court.” Although the jury came to a different conclusion, his decision came in response to a motion by The Times that the court should rule in his favor.