After deliberating for about two hours a jury in Sarah Palin's case against the NY Times sided with the newspaper, finding the Times was not liable for defaming Palin back in 2017.

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...

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.

As HotAir readers know, this was all prompted by a statement that appeared in a 2017 NY Times editorial written by then-editor James Bennet. The editorial was intended to be a both-sides approach to the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise by a Bernie Sanders supporter. In an effort to make that shooting seem like a case of turnabout, Bennet wrote that the last time a member of congress had been shot (Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011) it was a case of direct incitement created by Sarah Palin's district targeting map.

In fact, despite columnists at the Times (and many other outlets) making that connection, no evidence ever turned up to support it. Jared Lee Loughner had a pre-existing fixation with Rep. Giffords and had never seen Palin's map so far as anyone knows. He also was not a conservative but was a fan of left-wing conspiracy theories. In short, there was no connection to Palin, to the map or to the right's rhetoric more generally. All of that was an invention of the left that did not pan out.

So Bennet's suggestion years later that the 2011 Tucson shooting was a case of direct incitement was absolutely false and had been known to be false for years at that point. The Times did correct the editorial the next day but never apologized to Palin. Bennet apparently got emotional about it on the stand last week.

 “I blew it, you know,” Mr. Bennet said on the stand, choking up with emotion. “I made a mistake.”...

Mr. Bennet became emotional over the issue of an apology to Ms. Palin. Her lawyer, Shane Vogt, had said in his opening statement that The Times had never apologized to Ms. Palin and did not name her in the correction on the editorial.

“I did and I do apologize to Governor Palin,” Mr. Bennet said. “It was a mistake.”

If Bennet was apologetic, the lawyer for the Times was dismissive.

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...

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.

As I pointed out last week, this is the second time this case has gone to trial. In 2022 the judge ruled against Palin as the jury was deliberating. An appeals court found that and other issues created reversible error by the judge and ordered a new trial.

So is this the end of this case for good now? Outside the courthouse, Palin said she wasn't sure what she planned to do next.

It is unclear whether the verdict will be the end of the lawsuit’s eight-year run or whether Ms. Palin’s lawyers will again appeal.

Outside the court after the verdict, Ms. Palin said she was going to “go home to a beautiful family” and “get on with life.” She declined to say whether she would appeal the verdict.

“We haven’t talked about what we’ll do next legally,” she told reporters.

The judge made a clear mistake during the last trial by announcing he was ruling for the Times before the jury reached its verdict. Some of the jurors, who were not sequestered, heard about his decision from media reports the night before reaching their own verdict. But unless there is some clear error in this case, an appeals court may not be as willing to overturn a jury's decision.

I still find it very hard to believe that an editor at the NY Times didn't know the truth about the Tucson shooting, but absent some new witness to contradict Bennet's claim this was all just a big mistake I don't see this going Palin's way. It's too bad because what the Times published was shameful and stupid. Palin never deserved the lies about her (non-existent) connection to the Tucson shooting, but especially not six years later after everyone else in the world (everyone but James Bennet) knew the truth.