Posted on 02/14/2022 1:05:17 PM PST by PghBaldy
Even worse would be if he in any way unfairly tainted the jury.
So is this the case that goes to the SC to test NY Times v Sullivan?
Well, it’s got an ancient Latin name, so presumably it’s not a new idea the judge dreamed up.
JNOV
Judgment non obstante veredicto
It's like Whoopi's "rape rape."
Of course.
There is justice, and then there is actual justice.
No ‘actual’ equal justice, you mean
Jed Rakoff is a Lefty thru and thru.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50
Essentially, after the plaintiff has presented their case, the defense will move to throw the case out. The judge can throw it out if he determines that the evidence introduced doesn't meet the legal standard for liability, even if you believe all of the plaintiff's evidence/witnesses to be accurate.
If it isn't thrown out then, it can be thrown out again after the defense has presented its case, and then again after the jury comes back. So yeah, it does happen. It's a mechanism to prevent juries from imposing civil liability regardless of what the evidence showed.
The reason a judge may wait until after the jury comes back is what is called "judicial economy". The decision to throw the case out can be reviewed by the court of appeals. That court can either uphold the trial judge's decision to toss the case, or overrule it. If the appellate court reverses the trial court, and the case was dismissed by the trial court judge before the jury reached a decision, you'd have to have an entirely new trial. Huge waste of resources.
But if the jury reaches the verdict firt, the trial judge tosses it, and then the court of appeals reverses the trial judge, you already have a verdict, and the case is essentially over.
U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff, a Clinton appointee tossed out the case and said Palin’s lawyers did not present sufficient evidence against the New York Times.
////////
Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable.
////////
The judge then added, “But it won’t make any difference because screw that bitch.”
Okay, I added this last part but really how far off can it actually be?
Clearly grounds for a mistrial.
Our defamation laws are so weak as to be useless. Guess who wrote them that way?
Because Palin I.e. her lawyers, never established it was malicious. Bennet was very clear he screwed up, not because he was out to get Palin. Because of freedom in f press , free speech etc public figures suing face a higher standard that requires showing malice. When Sandman sued he was a private citizen. The judge is troubled and wants a jury verdict so Palin can appeal.
We are truly at war with the self-appointed non-elite elites - as describes so many judges and attorneys.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan the United States Supreme Court gave the press a license to lie, certainly as far as public figures are concerned. So long as they lie in accordance with the terms of their license, the press cannot be held liable for its lies.
Red Jakoff. Misspelled.
“Is there a difference between “actual malice“ and “malice.”
What about reckless disregard of the truth?
Seems like that used to be actionable.
So.... What IS “actual malice”, Judge?
Do they need to have sworn and notarized statement stating “We have malice in our hearts and want to ruin her life?” Would that suffice?
Malice = wrongful intention, especially as increasing the guilt of certain offenses.
What do you think they intended, Judge? They wrote an editorial blaming her for the shooting. They knew it was a lie, but published it anyway. If you can’t read the ‘intent’ in that action, you are unqualified to be a judge or a lawyer.
Bad case law is like bad medicine. It should be stopped from use.
Wow this is a mess. I get JNOV, but it is “notwithstanding” the verdict. If the jury came back, and said no claim, the judge never has to issue a JNOV. He could have said at the close of plaintiff’s case that he was entering a directed verdict, saying that plaintiffs hadn’t met their burden, but he didn’t. Second, JNOV is based on the motions of the parties. This public statement just predetermined the issue, and prevented the plaintiff’s from arguing their position, reversible error. Third, telling the media that he’s going to dismiss the case, before the jury decides, is tampering, reversible, and I would argue a large ethical breach.
Mental state is impossible to prove directly, unless someone is stupid enough to admit it. It is found by a jury, based on circumstantial evidence. The long time between Palin’s ad, and the op ed itself, should be sufficient circumstance for a jury to infer actual malice itself.
I’m not a fan of NYT v. Sullivan, I really do hope the S.Ct. revisits the issue.
In your case the judge did the right thing. No sense going forward when the evidence is clear that a criminal defendant is not guilty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.