Is it a question relevant to this case?
Sure. The standard is different if she is not a public figure.
A person can probably accomplish that. She isn’t even trying to do so.
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.
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.
In any case, the jury ruled against her.
She wasn’t accused of libel. She accused others of libel.
Yeah, I saw that when I posted it. But her statements will get counter statements that could be libelous.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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.
C’mon man!
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.
I’m being misquoted! Libeled! 
Yes, very unusual and probably reversable error for the reasons you state.
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)