Jurors in Sarah Palin case received push alerts about judge’s decision but news did not impact verdict
Unanimous jury found that newspaper editorial and editor at centre of trial did not defame ex-Alaska governor
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Several jurors in Sarah Palin’s defamation case against The New York Times received push notifications to their phone after the judge signalled he would be dismissing the case, according to the judge who presided over the closely watched trial.
While the jury was absent from the courtroom on 14 February, US District Judge Jed Rakoff determined that no reasonable jury would find that the newspaper and editor at the centre of the trial acted with actual malice in publishing a 2017 editorial.
On Tuesday, jurors reached their verdict, finding that the newspaper and then-editorial editor James Bennet did not defame Ms Palin in the editorial, which falsely linked a map from her political action committee to a 2011 shooting that killed six people and injured then-US Rep Gabby Giffords.
In a note to the court on Wednesday, Judge Rakoff reported that several jurors had involuntarily received push alerts on their phone after the judge told both parties that he intended to toss out Ms Palin’s complaint.
The jurors “repeatedly assured the Court’s law clerk that these notifications had not affected them in any way.”
Sarah Palin might be headed to the Supreme Court to change American freedoms forever- Jury finds The New York Times ‘not liable’ in Sarah Palin’s defamation case against newspaper
‘This one crossed the line’: Sarah Palin’s attorney accuses New York Times of ‘arrogance’ in defamation trial
Sarah Palin testifies she was ‘powerless’ over New York Times editorial in libel case
After the judge signalled his decision on Monday, New York Times attorney David Axelrod asked the judge to bring jurors back into the courtroom to remind them to avoid looking at news about the case.
In remarks to attorneys on Monday, Judge Rakoff said he believes the case to be “an example of very unfortunate editorializing” but that it did not rise to the standard of “actual malice” – a standard established in a landmark US Supreme Court ruling on libel cases in 1967.
Jurors reached their unanimous decision the following day.
The editorial at the centre of the trial – “America’s Lethal Politics” – was written in the aftermath of a 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball game and criticised a rise in volatile political rhetoric.
Ms Palin was not the subject of the editorial, but a map from her political action committee – featuring crosshairs over Democratic-leaning congressional districts – was cited as an example, pointing to the 2011 shooting in Arizona.
In the course of editing the story, Mr Bennet added a sentence saying that “the link to political incitement was clear” – which Ms Palin believes had falsely implied a causal link between herself and the 2011 shooting.
The editorial was corrected hours later, and the court heard testimony from New York Times writers about the editorial process and the mistakes made in handling the editorial, as well as efforts to correct it.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments