OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The jurors that heard former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s case against The New York Times for defamation got a message on their phones that could be problematic.
On Wednesday a court filing showed that jurors received a push notification to their phones that showed the judge decided to dismiss the case regardless of the jury’s decision, Reuters reported.
The case highlights the increasing difficulty for jurors to avoid media coverage of high-profile cases, and could provide Palin, a former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate, with grounds to appeal or to seek to have the verdict overturned, legal experts told Reuters.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said in open court but outside the jury’s presence that he would dismiss the case regardless of what the jury decided because Palin had failed to prove that the Times acted with “actual malice.”
In an unusual move, the judge did not tell them what he had decided, while repeating his caution that they avoid news coverage of the trial.
But the news traveled fast across online media platforms and on social media. A Times lawyer expressed concern on Monday to Rakoff in court that jurors might learn about it inadvertently, such as through push notifications on their cellphones.
“It’s a very difficult thing to ask jurors to do,” Dubin Research & Consulting President Josh Dubin said. “Media is so intrusive that you have an IV line into your veins that consists of media in all forms.”
The nine members of the jury unanimously ruled against Palin, deciding that The Times did not defame her in a story from 2017.
The judge said that “several jurors” informed his clerk late on Tuesday that they got the notifications on their phone even as they “assiduously adhering to the Court’s instruction to avoid media coverage of the trial.”
The judge said that the jurors informed his clerk that “these notifications had not affected them in any way or played any role whatever in their deliberations.”
Some believe the judge had shown contempt for Palin prior to the start of the trial when it had to be delayed.
The New York Times reports:
Ms. Palin’s in-person testimony in a federal courtroom in Lower Manhattan this week was expected to be one of the focal points of the trial. Ms. Palin sued The Times in 2017 after it published an editorial that erroneously asserted a link between her political rhetoric and the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011 that left six people dead and gravely wounded Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic member of Congress. The Times later corrected the editorial.
Ms. Palin’s lawyer, Kenneth G. Turkel, said in court on Monday that his client, the former Alaska governor, was still eager to appear.
“She wants to be here for jury selection, she wants to testify live,” Mr. Turkel told the judge, Jed S. Rakoff. Ms. Palin has had three tests, all of which came back positive, according to the judge. He also said that she was not vaccinated.
It was the remark by Turkel that Palin had yet to be vaccinated that some believe added undue bias to the case.
“She is, of course, unvaccinated,” Turkel said.
“Not seeing this quote in context, how is Sarah Palin supposed to get a fair trial if this is the perspective of the federal judge presiding over her case against the NYT?” Benjamin Weingarten, a deputy editor for RealClearInvestigations and a columnist for The Federalist, noted on Twitter.
Not seeing this quote in context, how is Sarah Palin supposed to get a fair trial if this is the perspective of the federal judge presiding over her case against the NYT? https://t.co/d1MGG0ry8z pic.twitter.com/3pwLtbM9vh
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) January 24, 2022
Is the case about her vaccination status? Then I don't see how it matters what he thinks about it.
— Miss Kate (If you're nasty) (@KateofLate8) January 24, 2022
“Is the case about her vaccination status? Then I don’t see how it matters what he thinks about it,” another user said.
