Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters] – Sarah Palin demanded that the judge in her failed defamation suit against The New York Times be disqualified. She said his string of mistakes had tainted this case and warranted a new trial.

Lawyers for former Republican vice-presidential candidate and Alaska Governor filed a Tuesday evening filing at Manhattan’s federal court. They claimed that U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff had set too high of a standard for them to show the Times was malicious.

Lawyers also criticized Rakoff for his unusual decision to dismiss Palin’s case during jurors’ deliberations.

The jurors voted against Palin’s Feb. 15 verdict. They cited several jurors, who admitted later to the clerk to having learned about Rakoff’s decision through push notifications sent to their phones.

Palin’s legal team wrote, “A reasonably informed person with all facts would doubt the court’s impartiality”

Palin (58) is appealing Rakoff’s verdict.

Rakoff’s chambers didn’t immediately reply to Wednesday’s request for comment.

Danielle Rhoades Ha, a Times spokesperson said that she was confident the jury and judge ruled in the right way.

Palin filed suit against the Times and James Bennet (at the time its editor on the editorial page), over an editorial published by the Times in June 2017, which addressed gun control and deplored the rise of political rhetoric.

The shooting occurred following a shooting at Virginia’s congressional baseball practice, in which Republican U.S. Congressman Steve Scalise was one of the injured.

This editorial mistakenly connected Palin’s rhetoric with a mass shooting that occurred in Arizona in 2011, where Gabrielle Giffords, then-congresswoman for Democratic Party, was severely wounded. This was fixed the next day.

“FUNDAMENTAL PREJUDICIAL ERRORS”

Rakoff stated in a March 1, written opinion that Palin had “wholly failed” to show the Times and Bennet committed “actual malice,” which is a strict standard for publishing an editorial.

While he acknowledged that the jury was informed of his intention to dismiss him, he stated it was regrettable. However, they said that this did not impact their decision-making.

Palin’s legal team claimed that the result was due to “several fundamental and prejudicial errors” made by the judge.

Lawyers claimed that Rakoff’s speedy selection of jurors meant jurors were not properly screened for bias. This is a requirement for cases involving “a major media defendant”, polarizing parties, political issues and extensive press coverage.

Rakoff’s refusal to speak to reporters about push notifications was also a violation of federal rules governing judiciary conduct and could be interpreted as an attempt to “bolster” the court’s decisions.

Some are calling for a reexamination of New York Times v. Sullivan from 1964, which was a significant Supreme Court case that broadly protected journalists, because it is difficult to prove defamation.

Public figures who claim defamation must show they were acting with actual malice by publishing false or recklessly disregarding the truth.

The Times will respond to Palin’s argument by April 12.

Palin served as Senator John McCain’s running-mate for the 2008 election and was Alaska’s governor between 2006 and 2009.

According to Newsmax, on Monday she said that she would be open to filling in the U.S. House of Representatives spot left by Don Young, a longtime Alaskan Congressman. Young died last Friday.