The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
    • Contact
  • Investigations
    • Data
  • Donate
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • China Tries Getting Rich In America’s Backyard
  • Rockland Police Search for Man in Connection to Reported Assault
  • Residential and Condo Associations in Maine Can No Longer Ban Members from Installing EV Chargers
  • Angus King Co-Sponsors Republican-Led Bill Mandating Steps to Combat Chinese Espionage
  • Here Are the Tax and Fee Increases Mainers Can Expect from the Budget Janet Mills Signed into Law on Monday
  • Maine Wildlife Chief on Covering Up Dark Web Drug Scandal Involving Ex-Husband: “can’t talk about personnel…”
  • “Environmental” Group Trashing Maine Mills Actually Opposes Two Clean-Energy Sources — Oops!
  • ICE Agents Face a Massive Five-Fold Uptick in Assaults While Carrying Out Their Duties
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Tuesday, June 24
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
    • Contact
  • Investigations
    • Data
  • Donate
The Maine Wire
Home » News » Commentary » Halsey Frank: Palin trial problematic
Commentary

Halsey Frank: Palin trial problematic

Halsey FrankBy Halsey FrankFebruary 23, 2022Updated:March 1, 2022No Comments5 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

One of the basic functions of government is to right wrongs. When all else fails, we resort to the legal system to obtain justice. When life seems unfair, we sue in the hope of vindication. Even that doesn’t seem to be working well these days.

You may recall Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, and vice-presidential running mate of Arizona Sen. John McCain, who ran against Barak Obama and Joe Biden and lost in the 2008 election. She gave a great speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. So great that it prompted the media to wage a protracted campaign against her.

After losing, Palin went on to try a number of roles, including running a political action committee. In 2010, Palin’s PAC ran an ad that placed crosshairs over twenty congressional districts that it targeted to try to win. One of those districts was congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ in Arizona.

On January 8, 2011, while conducting a meeting with constituents outside a supermarket in Tuscon, Giffords was shot and wounded by Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner killed six people and wounded 13 others. He eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. The media blamed the shooting on gun rights activists in general and on Palin in particular because of the ad.

Claims that Palin’s PAC’s ad caused the shooting were debunked because Loughner had been obsessed with Giffords for years prior to the ad running, and there was no evidence that he was even aware of the ad.

Then, on June 14, 2017 in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot five people, including Louisiana Republican congressman Steve Scalise, while they were practicing for the annual congressional baseball game.

Later that day, The New York Times ran an editorial lamenting the vicious state of American politics. It used Hodgkinson and Loughner as examples. Editor James Bennet was the primary author of the editorial.

Notwithstanding a factchecker’s warning that the assertion wasn’t correct, Bennet blamed Palin for Giffords’ shooting. As originally published, the editorial read, “In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and six people, including a 9-year-old-girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

After others pointed out the error, The Times corrected the editorial to disclaim any connection between Palin’s PAC ad and Giffords’ shooting.

Twelve days after the editorial was published, Palin sued The Times for libel. Because she is a public figure, she had to prove not only that the assertion that she caused Giffords’ shooting was false, but also that The Times made the false assertion with malice. In this context, malice means that the Times made the assertion knowing that it was false, or in reckless disregard of whether it was false.

On August 29, 2017, Judge Jed Rakoff, a Bill Clinton appointee, dismissed Palin’s suit for failure to state a claim after a hearing in which Bennet was the only witness and testified that he was unaware that no connection between the ad and Giffords’ shooting had ever been established.

The judge found Bennet credible notwithstanding facts such as that Bennet had been editor of The Atlantic magazine when it debunked the claimed connection, and that the initial drafter of the editorial included a hyperlink to at least one of those Atlantic articles. He ruled there wasn’t enough evidence from which a jury could find malice.

The court of appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, and the case went to trial at the beginning of February in New York City.

According to the docket, on February 14, 2022, while the jury was deliberating, Judge Rakoff granted judgment to The Times because he did not think that there was enough evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in Palin’s favor. Not surprisingly, the media broadcast that news far and wide, although some outlets reported that the judge planned to dismiss the case while others reported he had dismissed the case. Either way, the jury became aware that the judge thought Palin’s case was inadequate, and they found against her.

Judges are supposed to be neutral. They are supposed to avoid even the appearance of partiality. They are supposed to decide questions of law, and to let juries decide questions of fact such as whether Bennet acted with malice. Judges are not supposed to do or say anything that suggests to the jury how they should decide their issues. Those principles are especially important in high profile, politically-charged cases.

That said, it is a judge’s role to prevent a jury from returning a verdict that is unsupported by the evidence, and mental states like malice can be difficult to prove. Even so, it seems there was enough evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Bennet recklessly disregarded the lack of connection between Palin’s ad and Giffords’ shooting while writing the editorial.

If Judge Rakoff thought otherwise, then he should have taken the case away from the jury, granted judgment in The Times’ favor and let Palin appeal. If he wasn’t sure, or he wanted to see whether the jury agreed with him, then he should have summarily denied The Times’ motion for judgment subject to their renewing it after the verdict and said nothing more.

But Judge Rakoff had already let his unfavorable opinion of Palin be known. As the trial was about to begin, Palin tested positive for covid, necessitating a delay. Judge Rakoff commented disapprovingly that of course, she wasn’t vaccinated, and the media widely reported that comment, too.

Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, she was entitled to a fair trial. It doesn’t look like she got one.

Commentary editorial editorial board Featured judges judicial judicial branch New York Times Opinion sarah palin
Previous ArticleEnergy committee holds hearing on Gov. Mills’ utility accountability bill
Next Article Lawmakers spar over State House pandemic protocols during Wednesday’s session
Halsey Frank

Halsey Frank was born and raised in and around New York City and nearby Englewood, NJ. He graduated from the Dwight Englewood School, Wesleyan University and the Boston University School of Law. After law school, Halsey worked for the Department of Justice for 34 years, first as a civil litigator and later as a criminal prosecutor and civil attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. In 1999, Halsey moved to Maine where he worked as a civil attorney and criminal prosecutor in the U.S Attorney’s Office until 2017, when he was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to be Maine’s U.S. Attorney, the chief federal law enforcement officer for the District of Maine. Halsey retired from the Department of Justice in February 2021. Prior to becoming a U.S. Attorney, Halsey was active in local affairs, including the Portland Republican City Committee, the Friends of Portland Parks, the Friends of the Portland Public Library and the Maine Leadership Institute. He previously authored a column entitled “Short Relief” that appeared in The Forecaster regional newspaper. His views are his own.

Subscribe to Substack

Related Posts

King 2.0 Out-Politics Pingree 2.0 on Her Home Turf at Rockland “No Kings” Rally

June 16, 2025

Maine Businesses Shouldn’t Have to Pick up the Tab for Northern Light Health’s Financial Problems

June 16, 2025

It’s Only Mid-June, Yet Summer’s Already Getting Hot

June 13, 2025

Leave A Reply

Subscribe to Substack
Recent News

China Tries Getting Rich In America’s Backyard

June 24, 2025

Rockland Police Search for Man in Connection to Reported Assault

June 24, 2025

Residential and Condo Associations in Maine Can No Longer Ban Members from Installing EV Chargers

June 24, 2025

Angus King Co-Sponsors Republican-Led Bill Mandating Steps to Combat Chinese Espionage

June 24, 2025

Here Are the Tax and Fee Increases Mainers Can Expect from the Budget Janet Mills Signed into Law on Monday

June 24, 2025
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.