I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but the Clinton appointed judge screwed her. He announced over the weekend that he was going to dismiss her case against the New York Times, but would let the jury deliberate. That is a civil jury, so they are not sequestered. Some of them no doubt read the judge's remarks and came back today with a verdict for the times.

This makes an appeal a nightmare. Had the judge done this before or after the trial (assuming the jury came back for Palin), the appeal would have just been about his actions. Now, Palin has to appeal the judge's actions and the verdict. That makes the job almost impossible.

As I said, I am no Sarah Palin fan, but she got banana republic justice in her libel suit.

1 I agree with your analysis -- and I AM a fan of Sarah Palin.

2 No, his actions make an appeal a slam dunk. Jurors admit they were aware of judge's action while they were deliberating. The judge corrupted the jury by influencing their decision. That means an appeals court reverses the jury verdict and the judges' action which corrupted it. The judge should have waited until after the jury returned a verdict. It it was against Palin he would have had to do nothing.

3  The real out come being missed is the judge called The Paper OF Record incompetent twice. Imagine it is now on record that the NYT is a paper run by incompetent people churning out incompetent news stories.
 Bill, I read the complete opposite that she has a tough row to hoe in an appeals case. Perspective plays a key role in how this is seen. I hope she kicks ass.

4 social media panel
Positive site, where did u come up with the information on this posting?
smm shoppier

5 If an appeals judge rules to support the trial judge, and ignores that judge's effect on the jury (supports the jury verdict) then he will, in effect, have rendered the jury system obsolete, at least in civil trials.

6 Bill, that's what I would think too but Judson is a lawyer of some note and I trust his assessment here. It's utterly disgraceful but I fear he may be right.

7 I hadn't heard that part Mike. I would say good for him, but he knows better, I suspect. He's giving them cover.

8  I heard it on Red Eye radio. I trust those 2 idiots. According to their diatribe the incompetency was part of the defense used to protect the NYT. They are actually claiming the NYT is an incompetent source of news. Therefore it has negated itself as a to be trusted news source. What a great example of shooting oneself in their own foot and this case I believe the shot took both knees.
 In a just system the judge would have recused himself due to his political ties and the politics surronding this case. Their are far to many examples of late were this is not being done. A judge above all should be impartial in order for their to be justice.

9 It NEVER seems to happen with Democrat- appointed judges Mike. Always with Republican appointees, it seems.

10

As I said, I am no Sarah Palin fan, but she got banana republic justice in her libel suit.