NEW YORK (AP) 鈥� A federal appeals court revived Sarah Palin鈥檚 libel case against The New York Times on Wednesday, citing errors by a lower court judge, particularly his decision to dismiss the lawsuit while a jury was deliberating.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan wrote that Judge Jed S. Rakoff鈥檚 decision in February 2022 to improperly intruded on the jury鈥檚 work.
It also found that the erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and an erroneous response to a question from the jury tainted the jury's decision to rule against Palin. It declined, however, to grant Palin's request to force Rakoff off the case on grounds he was biased against her. The 2nd Circuit said she had offered no proof.
The libel lawsuit by Palin, a onetime Republican vice presidential candidate and former governor of Alaska, centered on the newspaper鈥檚 2017 editorial falsely linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting, which Palin asserted damaged her reputation and career.
The Times acknowledged its editorial was inaccurate but said it quickly corrected errors it called an 鈥渉onest mistake鈥� that were never meant to harm Palin.
Shane Vogt, a lawyer for Palin, said he was reviewing the opinion.
Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the Times, said the decision was disappointing. 鈥淲e鈥檙e confident we will prevail in a retrial,鈥� he said in an email.
The 2nd Circuit, in a ruling written by Judge John M. Walker Jr., reversed the jury verdict, along with Rakoff's decision to dismiss the lawsuit while jurors were deliberating.
Despite his ruling, Rakoff let jurors finish deliberating and , which went against Palin.
The appeals court noted that Rakoff's ruling made credibility determinations, weighed evidence, and ignored facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly find supported Palin's case.
It also described how 鈥減ush notifications鈥� that reached the cellphones of jurors 鈥渃ame as an unfortunate surprise to the district judge.鈥� The 2nd Circuit said it was not enough that the judge's law clerk was assured by jurors that Rakoff's ruling had not affected their deliberations.
鈥淕iven a judge鈥檚 special position of influence with a jury, we think a jury鈥檚 verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge鈥檚 already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry,鈥� the appeals court said.
In its ruling Wednesday, the 2nd Circuit said it was granting a new trial because of various trial errors and because Rakoff's mid-deliberations ruling against Palin, which might have reached jurors through alerts delivered to cell phones, 鈥渋mpugn the reliability of that verdict.鈥�
鈥淭he jury is sacrosanct in our legal system, and we have a duty to protect its constitutional role, both by ensuring that the jury鈥檚 role is not usurped by judges and by making certain that juries are provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law,鈥� the appeals court said.
Larry Neumeister, The Associated Press
