Jury finds The New York Times did not libel former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

NEW YORK (AP) — A jury concluded Tuesday that The New York Times did not libel former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for an error in a 2017 editorial that she says damaged her reputation.

The jury deliberated a little over two hours before reaching its verdict after lawyers for Palin and the newspaper delivered closing arguments at a Manhattan federal court civil trial that is in its second week.

Palin testified Monday that death threats against her increased and her spirits drooped after an editorial about gun violence said her political action committee had contributed to political rhetoric that enabled an atmosphere of violence.

The Times corrected the article less than 14 hours after it was published.

Kenneth Turkel, an attorney for Palin, urged the jury to find the Times liable for defamation on the grounds that its former editorial page editor, James Bennet, either knew what he was publishing was wrong or acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth.

He told the jury it should award Palin compensatory damages for the harm done to her reputation and private mental anguish, adding that they should “find a number and let her get some closure to this thing.”

“To this day, there been no accountability,” he said. “That’s why we’re here.”

He told jurors not to be deceived by Palin’s “bouncy” persona on the witness stand.

“She doesn’t cry a lot,” Turkel said. “It may have been to them an honest mistake. For her, it was a life changer.”

Palin, who earned a journalist degree in college, sued the Times for unspecified damages in 2017, about a decade after she burst onto the national stage as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

Her lawsuit stemmed from an editorial about gun control published after U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, was wounded in 2017 when a man with a history of anti-GOP activity opened fire on a Congressional baseball team practice in Washington.

In the editorial, the Times wrote that before the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona that severely wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others, Palin’s political action committee had contributed to an atmosphere of violence by circulating a map of electoral districts that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

In a correction, The Times said the editorial had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting” and that it had “incorrectly described” the map.

A tearful Bennet apologized to Palin from the witness stand when he testified last week, saying he was tormented by the error and worked urgently to correct it after readers complained to the newspaper.

Felicia Ellsworth, an attorney for the Times, said the jury cannot find the newspaper or Bennet liable because it would have to conclude that the error was intentionally published by editors who knew it was wrong.

“There’s not been one shred of evidence showing anything other than an honest mistake,” she said.

Ellsworth said Bennet and the Times “corrected the record loudly, clearly and quickly” once the error was discovered.

The lawyer pointed out that several Times editors testified consistently about the effort to correct the error and the importance they placed on accuracy while Palin’s claims were “supported by nothing other than her say so.”

And she noted that Palin’s status as a public figure meant that the jury would have to find “actual malice” to find in her favor.

“To Governor Palin, this is just another opportunity to take on fake news. To James Bennet, the truth matters,” Ellsworth said.

In February 2022, Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected Palin’s claims in a ruling issued while a jury deliberated. The judge then let jurors deliver their verdict, which also went against Palin.

The trial is occurring after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan restored the case last year.

The appeals court said Rakoff’s dismissal ruling improperly intruded on the jury’s work. It also cited flaws in the trial, saying there was erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and a mistaken response to a question from the jury.