(This story from February 16th refiles to insert dropped words at the end of paragraph in order to state that an appeals court did not find any evidence that any juror wasn’t impartial for El Chapo.

By Luc Cohen

NEW YORK (Reuters), – Jurors of Sarah Palin’s lawsuit for defamation against the New York Times were notified via phone by the judge that he had dismissed the case, regardless if they reached a verdict. This was based on a court filing from Wednesday.

According to legal experts, the case shows how difficult it is for jurors not to be covered by media in high-profile cases. It could give Palin, a former Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential nominee, grounds to appeal the verdict or seek its overturn, Reuters reported.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff stated Monday in open court, but without the presence of the jury, that he would dismiss Palin’s case no matter what verdict the jury made. Palin hadn’t proved that the Times had acted with “actual malice.”

Unusual move: The judge didn’t tell the jury what he decided. However, he reiterated his warning to avoid media coverage.

The news quickly spread on social media as well as online media platforms. Rakoff was questioned by a Times lawyer Monday about the possibility that jurors could have inadvertently learned of it through push notifications to their phones.

“It’s a very difficult thing to ask jurors to do,” said Josh Dubin, president of Dubin Research & Consulting. You have an IV that is made up of media all types.

The nine-member jury unanimously decided against Palin on Tuesday. They found that Palin was not also defamed in an editorial published in 2017 that wrongly connected her to the mass shooting of six years prior.

Rakoff noted in Wednesday’s court filing that “several jurors” had told his clerk late Tuesday that they had received the telephone notifications. This despite them “assiduously following the Court’s instruction to avoid coverage by the media.”

Rakoff said that his clerk was assured by the jurors that they had “not affected” their proceedings. He said, however that any party in the case should inform him immediately if they are concerned.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

It was viewed as a test for long-standing U.S. media protections from defamation claims by public figures. Palin indicated before the trial she was going to appeal her loss.

Jurors must reach verdicts on the evidence that has been presented to them.

Palin might be successful in getting the verdict overturned, if Palin can show that Rakoff coverage affected jurors’ decisions, stated Melissa Gomez (president of MMG Jury Consulting) in Philadelphia.

Palin’s lawyer Ken Turkel declined comment, as did a representative of the Times.

On Friday, jurors started deliberations. They spent approximately four hours discussing the case on Tuesday, following Rakoff’s decision. Push notifications were sent on Monday afternoon.

Gomez stated that there may be some who will say “Okay, let’s go home. The decision is already made.”

U.S. jurors can make their own decisions and some U.S. judges may have to throw out verdicts.

A Florida appeals court overturned a manslaughter verdict in 2010 because a jury looked up “prudent”, an online definition, on the internet.

Dubin stated that a judge must determine if a juror is biased by news coverage, before overturning any verdict on this basis.

Lawyers representing El Chapo, a Mexican drug kingpin, appealed his conviction for drug-related offenses. They cited Vice News’ report that jurors were following the case through the media.

Appeal court dismissed this argument finding that there was no evidence of bias or ineligibility by any juror against El Chapo’s real name Joaquin Guzman.