# Is This A Common Legal Tactic (Palin v. New York Times)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [February 14, 2022, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485 "2022-02-14T22:57:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/21 "2022-02-15T19:23:24Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> > [@Jackmannii](#):
> >
> > Hard to see how someone with her history of notoriety could ever _not_ be a public figure.
>
> It an unanswered question from the Sullivan case. Can’t a person withdraw from public life? Maybe not.
Is it a question relevant to this case?
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/22 "2022-02-15T19:24:32Z")
Sure. The standard is different if she is not a public figure.
---
### Author:  [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/23 "2022-02-15T19:33:09Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> Can’t a person withdraw from public life? Maybe not.
A person can probably accomplish that. She isn’t even trying to do so.
---
### Author:  [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/24 "2022-02-15T19:40:18Z")
I concede that with a _completely different set of facts_ (i.e., a statement by a private individual), the legal tactics would, in fact, be different.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/25 "2022-02-15T19:44:26Z")
But under the Sullivan case, can she ever do it? Just speaking in front of a local group makes her a continuing public figure it is said. What can she do? Never speak again? Then she would never be accused of libel.
---
### Author:  [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/26 "2022-02-15T19:47:19Z")
In any case, the jury ruled against her.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/27 "2022-02-15T19:52:12Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> Then she would never be accused of libel.
She wasn’t accused of libel. She accused others of libel.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/28 "2022-02-15T20:01:34Z")
Yeah, I saw that when I posted it. But her statements will get counter statements that could be libelous.
---
### Author:  [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/29 "2022-02-15T20:39:48Z")
Sarah Palin began a political career in 1992, and was active including being a political commentator and TV star, and even actively publicly endorsing candidates in the 2016 federal election. It’s hard to imagine that in 2017 she could claim to be a private citizen again out of the public spotlight for the purposes of a anti-Sullivan-based libel lawsuit.
I guess the question is - what is the bar for “actual malice”? The fact that the NYT immediately apologized for the extremity of its language the next day subtracts significantly from any claim of libel?
Did the judge officially dismiss the case, or did he say he intended to?
Having both lost the verdict and having the case dismissed, what are the odds any appeal court will bother to hear it?
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/30 "2022-02-15T20:52:17Z")
> [@md-2000](#):
>
> Having both lost the verdict and having the case dismissed, what are the odds any appeal court will bother to hear it?
They have to hear it. They don’t have to entertain oral argument, and can issue a summary opinion, but they have to address the appeal if filed.
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2022, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/31 "2022-02-15T21:35:28Z")
> [@md-2000](#):
>
> …Did the judge officially dismiss the case, or did he say he intended to? …
He said he ultimately intended to even while the jury was deliberating, which seemed to me to be a _very_ bad move. There is an inevitable risk that, sequestered or not (and I don’t believe they were), the jury would learn of the judge’s intentions and it would affect their work.
In any event, the jury ruled against her: [Jury reaches verdict after judge tosses Sarah Palin's libel suit against New York Times - ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches-verdict-judge-tosses-sarah-palins-libel/story?id=82900675)
---
### Author:  [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpacemanSpiff_II)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/32 "2022-02-16T18:56:16Z")
And, as might have been expected, several members of the jury informed the court that they became aware of the judge’s announcement before reaching a verdict.
[gov.uscourts.nysd.476650.172.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.476650/gov.uscourts.nysd.476650.172.0.pdf)
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/33 "2022-02-16T19:38:34Z")
A juror seeing (or doing) something they shouldn’t is not that uncommon. It does not automatically create a need for a new trial. Although I do expect Palin’s team to file a motion, I don’t think it will be granted.
Just like during the trial, jurors sometimes hear things in court they shouldn’t. The judge tells them to disregard it, and they are presumed to be able to follow the court’s instructions. It is only in cases where the information is so powerful that it can’t reasonably be expected to be disregarded that a new trial is warranted.
---
### Author:  [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpacemanSpiff_II)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/34 "2022-02-16T19:52:48Z")
> [@Procrustus](#):
>
> A juror seeing (or doing) something they shouldn’t is not that uncommon. It does not automatically create a need for a new trial. Although I do expect Palin’s team to file a motion, I don’t think it will be granted.
Very possible. It’s hard to prove that a juror was influenced by something, especially if - as is the case here - they themselves say they were not.
But that’s all legalities. In the real world I don’t believe it’s possible that the jurors were not influenced by finding out that the judge was going to toss the case anyway. That’s a pretty big deal. And you can’t un-know something that you know. (Though it’s possible they would have ruled the same way anyway.)
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/35 "2022-02-16T19:56:11Z")
> [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](#):
>
> In the real world I don’t believe it’s possible that the jurors were not influenced by finding out that the judge was going to toss the case anyway.
I agree with others, that the Judge should have kept his intentions to himself until the jury came back with a verdict. I will note, as the judge did, that neither party objected to him ruling while the jury was deliberating.
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/36 "2022-02-16T21:23:11Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> Palin makes a decent argument that she isn’t a public figure anymore.
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> Yeah, it is probably a poor argument
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> But that’s what makes it a semi-decent argument.
C’mon man!
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/37 "2022-02-16T21:38:31Z")
> [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](#):
>
> Very possible. It’s hard to prove that a juror was influenced by something, especially if - as is the case here - they themselves say they were not.
You could make the argument that a juror leaning towards Palin would be more likely to vote that way, because even if they were worried about the impact on the Times the judge’s ruling would negate it, and allow them to send a message.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/38 "2022-02-16T23:28:49Z")
I’m being misquoted! Libeled! 🙂
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/39 "2022-02-16T23:30:50Z")
Yes, very unusual and probably reversable error for the reasons you state.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2022, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485/40 "2022-02-16T23:40:54Z")
Unusual, certainly. Reversible error, almost certainly not. The parties didn’t object, and the juror said it was disregarded in deliberations. Palin’s lawyers will make a run at it, because it’s an obvious and easy argument to make. The Court of Appeals is unlikely to say denying the motion for a new trial was an abuse of discretion. (which I think would be the standard)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-common-legal-tactic-palin-v-new-york-times/959485.md?page=3)