[Skwor]

Uhm how can the judge dismiss a cased that it now with the jury to decide?

This doe snot sound right.

[ryderann]

Doesn’t the plaintiff have the choice of having a trial before a jury or before a judge?

[AndyJackson]

It's an allowed process called a Judgment not on the verdict. What this really suggests is that there is a corrupt judge who has figured that the jury will decide in Palin's favor.

But whereas it is very hard to appeal a jury verdict, it is easy to appeal a judge's decision.

So at the end of the day, the judge is off the hook. He did what he could to swing it to the Times and if he is over-ruled well that is on the COA.

What is interesting is that he did not dismiss it earlier.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Judge knew the jury would convict that’s why

[carcraft]

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.

[ModelBreaker]

It’s called JNOV or in English, Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.

He’s hoping the jury will decide against her — then he won’t JNOV her. But announcing it before the verdict is bizarre and amounts to jury tampering — there’s no way the jurors won’t hear that the judge is going to dismiss.