113 F.4th 245
2d Cir.2024Background
- Sarah Palin sued The New York Times and its former Opinion Editor, James Bennet, for defamation after a 2017 Times editorial falsely implied a direct link between Palin’s political action committee’s crosshairs map and the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
- The district court initially dismissed Palin’s suit under Rule 12(b)(6), but the Second Circuit reversed, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
- At trial, the district court, while the jury was deliberating, granted a Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law for the defendants, finding no reasonable jury could find actual malice.
- The jury rendered a verdict of “not liable,” but it later emerged that some jurors received push notifications indicating the court had already ruled against Palin.
- On appeal, Palin challenged the Rule 50 dismissal, the exclusion of certain evidence, erroneous jury instructions, and jurors’ exposure to extrinsic information, among other mistakes.
- The Second Circuit found multiple serious errors in the trial proceedings that tainted the verdict and ordered a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 50 Judgment (actual malice) | The district court improperly decided credibility, ignored evidence, violated jury role | Evidence insufficient for actual malice; court ruling justified | District court erred; sufficient evidence existed for jury to find actual malice; Rule 50 vacated |
| Exclusion of evidence (articles and bias) | Excluding articles/Bennet’s brother’s relevance harmed ability to prove malice | Evidence irrelevant or prejudicial; correct to exclude | District court abused discretion; evidence should have been admitted; warranted new trial |
| Defamatory malice requirement | No requirement to prove 'defamatory malice' in ordinary defamation cases | Plaintiff must prove defendant intended audience to interpret words as defamatory | Jury instruction requiring proof of defamatory malice was error; new trial required |
| Jury’s exposure to push notifications | Tainted jury’s independence and verdict | Not raised/argued properly on appeal; not prejudicial | Exposure likely prejudiced verdict; justified setting aside verdict and ordering new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (establishing the actual malice standard for defamation suits by public figures)
- Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (discussing subjective awareness/recklessness standard for actual malice)
- Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (on opinion versus assertion of fact in defamation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard applies to defamation/actual malice)
- Church of Scientology Int’l v. Behar, 238 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2001) (actual malice can be shown by circumstantial evidence)
- Dalbec v. Gentleman's Companion, Inc., 828 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1987) (clear and convincing evidence required for actual malice)