NEW YORK (AP) — The judge who presided over Sarah Palin’s libel case against The New York Times denied her request Tuesday for a new trial, saying she failed to introduce “even a speck” of evidence necessary to prove actual malice by the newspaper.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff made the assertion in a written decision as he rejected post-trial claims from Palin’s lawyers.
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.
“In actuality, none of these was erroneous, let alone a basis for granting Palin a new trial,” the judge said.
Rakoff wrote that regardless of her post-trial motions, Palin was required at a trial earlier this year to show that an error in a published editorial was motivated by actual malice — a requirement in libel lawsuits involving public figures.
“And the striking thing about the trial here was that Palin, for all her earlier assertions, could not in the end introduce even a speck of such evidence,” he said.
Lawyers for Palin declined to comment on Rakoff’s ruling.
Lawyers for The New York Times did not immediately respond to comment requests.
The libel lawsuit by Palin, a one-time Republican vice-presidential candidate and former governor of Alaska, centered on the newspaper’s 2017 editorial falsely linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting, which Palin asserted damaged her reputation and career.
The Times acknowledged their editorial was inaccurate, but said it quickly corrected the errors they called an “honest mistake” never meant to harm Palin.
Rakoff announced in February even before a jury completed its deliberations that he intended to dismiss the lawsuit because Palin had failed to show that the Times acted out of malice. Jurors themselves rejected Palin’s lawsuit the next day.
Rakoff said he thought it was fair to all parties not to wait for the jury’s verdict because he had already decided as a matter of law that the Palin hadn’t proven her case.
Her attorneys cited the timing of Rakoff’s announcement as one more reason a new trial should be ordered.
Maybe Ms. Palin was looking at Russia from her hotel room and was too distracted to proffer any proof.
This case, like Palin, was a bad joke.
On the flip side, it is funny how when right-wing media or personalities bash the libs, somehow that is all entertainment, protected speech, or based on absolute facts.
Is everyone in the Trump entourage a yutz? Contantly bringing absurd, meritless lawsuits, crying on Fox wha wha boo hoo.
The Judge said that Palin “failed to introduce ‘even a speck’ of evidence necessary to prove actual malice by the newspaper.”
Reminds me of when Obama said, in 2014, that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” behind the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups.
These Left Wing phonies make me sick!
Mistakes would affect politicians from both parties equally or close to it or even at least 75/25, yet 100% of the media “mistakes” are against Republicans never against Democrats.
Palin brought the lawsuit which was without merit in order to get publicity after lying low for years due to her dysfunctional family and divorce. She is now, along with 30 others seeking a seat in Congress.
The woman is an airhead but I admit her hair looks like a nice shaitel.
We know from last weeks Iran article that the failing nyt is the enemy of the Jewish people and puts our kives at danger. And they aren’t guilty here b
Which proves the judge is a biased partisan hack.
Everything the NY Times writes about Republicans is libelous and malicious. Miscarriage of justice.
Is he an Obum judge or a Clinton judge?