Posted on 03/01/2022 6:45:18 AM PST by fluorescence
NEW YORK, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Former U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin asked a U.S. court on Monday for a new trial after losing her defamation case against the New York Times (NYT.N) earlier this month, and requested that the judge overseeing the case be disqualified.
Palin's attorneys said last week they would take those steps because several jurors received push notifications on their cellphones before deliberations were over about U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff's decision to dismiss the case regardless of their verdict.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
>decision to dismiss the case regardless of their verdict.
A judge can do that?
The 8th Amendment seems unequivocal:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rule of the common law.”
She did not have her right of trial by jury shall be preserved, the judge precluded that right!
Can a judge to that? I’m betting the law says absolutely NOT.
Can a liberal NY judge...you should see his educational pedigree-if you’re not a hypersensitive, virtue signaling, partisan hack, liberal judge after that you can’t be anything else-who was put on the bench by Clinton. He isn’t going to let anything happen to the NYT or any other liberal outlet.
But, he’s a judge. And judges gave themselves immunity. So very little can happen to him. In the liberal circles in NY & DC, he did his duty and is now lauded at all the cocktail parties as a liberal hero, just like Clinesmith, McCabe, Page, Strzok, Baker, Lerner, Wolfe, and so many more.
There’s no justice to be found in Amerikas courtrooms.
Feral “judges” are the new used car salesmen. Sarah is a conservative American. She should have known there was no way she was going to win in one of our sh*thouse “courts”.
Red Jakoff? You can’t make this crap up.
I would argue that the judge tainted the jury and denied her due process by doing so.
Judges can be impeached and removed from the bench. They can also be voted out if they are not federal judges. They can also be disbarred by the bar association after due process within that organization, and that generally means they are removed from the bench.
Fat chance of any of that happening in this environment, though.
Your statement is true as far as it goes. The only fly in your ointment is that the Constitution now only applies where the Democrat Party wishes. And the Republican Party rubberstamps what the Democrat Party Decrees. So I suppose that is two flies in your ointment. The sheep [People]? They will do as they are told. Believe what they are told to.
You’re right.
Please provide me an example of a liberal judge, in a liberal city, protecting liberal clients ever having anything negative happen to them other than a decision, possibly, being overturned.
I’m not even sure that insane female judge in Seattle was ever removed, when she should have went to prison as an accomplice for what happened after she released a guy.
In this case, it’s a very liberal federal judge in a very liberal city, in a very liberal state protecting very liberal clients.
Clinesmith lied in court and on court documents. Probation and kept his law license after a miniscule amount of probation.
In every case, criminal or civil, the Court has the power to dismiss at the close of the evidence, if the plaintiff, or the government in a criminal case, has failed to present enough evidence to allow the jury to make a determination of the facts necessary to support the claim. Essentially, if there is a failure of proof on a claim, then the Court, in its’ discretion, can dismiss the case before the jury reaches a decision. Such a dismissal can be appealed by the losing party and if reversed on appeal then a new trial will be ordered. If, in the Palin case, some of the jurors knew the case had been dismissed, even as they deliberated, then it could have impacted those deliberations and could be grounds for a new trial. It may require testimony from some or all of the jurors to determine if they knew of the dismissal and if it impacted their deliberations.
Thank you for clarifying. I’m not an attorney and was asking the question in earnest.
“testimony from some or all of the jurors to determine if they knew of the dismissal and if it impacted their deliberations”
__________
Judge: Guilty, or not guilty?
Jury: (clears it’s collective throat)
Judge: Not Guilty.
Jury: ...wait...What?
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.