Fiona Nanna, ForeMedia News

6 minutes read. Updated 12:01PM GMT Fri, 30August, 2024

Two years after losing a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate and Governor of Alaska, has been granted a new trial by a federal appeals court. This latest development in the long-standing legal battle comes after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday that the previous trial had significant errors, warranting a new hearing.

In 2022, a jury in New York found that Palin had failed to prove that The New York Times and its editorial page editor, James Bennet, acted with “actual malice” in publishing an editorial that erroneously linked her political action committee’s (PAC) map to a 2011 mass shooting that wounded former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The editorial, which was published on the same day as a shooting incident involving Rep. Steve Scalise during a baseball practice in Washington, D.C., suggested there was a “clear” link between a map featuring crosshairs over congressional districts, including Giffords’, that Palin’s PAC had previously circulated.

James Bennet, who edited the editorial, testified during the 2022 trial that he mistakenly included language suggesting a direct connection between the map and the Giffords shooting. Bennet claimed he quickly corrected the error once it was brought to his attention. However, Palin’s legal team argued that the damage had already been done, alleging that the editorial had harmed Palin’s reputation by falsely implying she had incited violence.

Court’s Decision to Grant a New Trial

Despite the 2022 jury ruling against Palin, the trial judge, Jed Rakoff, controversially stated during deliberations that Palin’s attorneys had not proven a critical element of their case and indicated he would have set aside a jury verdict favoring Palin. This procedural decision became a key point of contention in Palin’s appeal.

On Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Judge Rakoff “improperly intruded on the province of the jury by making credibility determinations, weighing evidence, and ignoring facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly have found to support Palin’s case.” The appellate court noted several issues during the trial, including the “erroneous exclusion of evidence,” “an inaccurate jury instruction,” a “legally erroneous response to a mid-deliberation jury question,” and the fact that jurors became aware of the judge’s dismissal via push notifications on their phones while they were still deliberating.

Palin’s Reaction and Next Steps

In response to the appeals court’s decision, Palin’s attorney, Shane Vogt, expressed satisfaction, stating, “Governor Palin is very happy with today’s decision, which is a significant step forward in the process of holding publishers accountable for content that misleads readers and the public in general.” Vogt emphasized that “the truth deserves a level playing field,” and Palin looks forward to presenting her case to a jury that will be “provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law,” as outlined by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, The New York Times expressed disappointment with the ruling. “We’re confident we will prevail in a retrial,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The Times. The newspaper maintains that its actions were not defamatory and that the correction issued promptly after the mistake was sufficient.

Implications for Media and Defamation Law

The decision to grant a new trial is a significant development not only for Palin but also for the broader discussion surrounding defamation law and press freedom in the United States. This case could set a precedent for how courts handle defamation claims brought by public figures against media organisations, especially concerning the standards of proving “actual malice.”

The retrial is expected to delve deeply into these issues, focusing on whether Bennet and The Times acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or simply made a good-faith error that was promptly corrected. As the legal battle continues, the stakes remain high for both Palin and The New York Times, with potential implications for the boundaries of free speech and accountability in journalism.

Backlinks:

  • Defamation Law in the U.S.
  • Understanding ‘Actual Malice’
  • Past Cases Involving The New York Times
  • Sarah Palin’s Legal Battles