Thread by @innercitypress

OK - now Sarah Palin v. NYT starts with Judge Rakoff hearing arguments on what can be included in opening statements. Inner City Press, on alert for Avenatti verdict, is covering Palin v. NYT innercitypress.com/sdny44krakoffp… and will live tweet, thread below

Lawyer: I have a question on voir dire. Do you allow back striking?
Judge Rakoff: I don't know what that is. Let me explain how I choose juries, as they were in this court for 50 years, good enough for Learned Hand, good enough for me.

Judge Rakoff: We have 82 jurors. Because of COVID, some in a separate room. We're choosing 9. I question the first 9. Maybe 1 or 2 is excused for cause. Number 10 moves up. Then each side gets three challenges, in rounds. See you at 10. Thread will continue.

Judge Rakoff is back, and says: I thought I had excluded The Atlantic article(s), or said he'd have to deal with them as they come up. Do you want to use them in openings?
Answer: Yes.
Judge Rakoff: OK. If they end up not coming in, your adversary can use it.

Judge Rakoff: The idea, I guess, is that since Mr. Bennet was the big honcho at The Atlantic, he should be expected to know what's in the magazine. But didn't he say he had read the articles?
A: He only said it was possible he read it. That's not enough of a link

A: They were in an Andrew Sullivan blog that was Atlantic-adjacent. There's another by the National Journal, under the Atlantic's corporate rubric. There's no connection that suggested Mr. Bennet read them.
Judge Rakoff: I want to hear from plaintiff's counsel.

Palin's lawyer: We asked Mr. Bennet at his deposition and he said it was possible he read them.
Judge Rakoff: I just heard he said No, No, Maybe. That's a think reed.
Palin's lawyer: That goes to a credibility issue. This was a significant event at the Times.

Palin's lawyer: While these were technically blogs, they were all published through The Atlantic.
Judge Rakoff: I'm inclined to think that you can at opening argument says that Mr. Bennet made no effort to check out the prior state of knowledge.

NYT's lawyer: We hope they don't try to bring up Mr. Bennet's brother.
[Apparently they won't bring up the Senator. Here's another Senator, @SenJeffMerkley, who yesterday rightly called UNSG @AntonioGuterres "shameful" on China: innercitypress.com/genocidegames6…

Now in Jury Assembly Room for Palin v NYT jury selection. SDNY staffer tells prospective jurors, Now is the time to silence your phone, if you don't want to be the center of attention with your special ring tone. It's jury duty time. Voir dire below #CourtCaseCast

Judge Rakoff: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin, we're going to swear you in.
[It's done, by Courtroom deputy]
Judge Rakoff: This is a civil case that will take 2 weeks at most, probably less. We're picking a jury of 9. Please pay close attention

Judge Rakoff: The parties in this case are well known. You may have views. But that's an irrelevancy. What's important is the American sense of fair play - jurors put aside their views and look at the facts.

Judge Rakoff: Let me address jurors 1 through 9. Let me tell you about this case. The plaintiff is Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and former VP candidate. The defendant is the NYT. Ms. Palin claims the Times libeled her.

Judge Rakoff: The Times says while they may have made one or two errors in editorial but they quickly corrected it. Anyone can't be fair? Very good. We'll sit from 9:30 to 3:30. The lawyer will have to be here at 9. We want you to avoid rush hour.

Judge Rakoff: We have had, in the SDNY during the pandemic, 106 jury trials. Not a single juror has come down with COVID 19. We're very proud of that. We're going to have our first witnesses today. What we can't control is how long the jury takes. [See, Avenatti]

Judge Rakoff's courtroom deputy announces that Juror 1 is excused, (former) Number 11 moves up to take the place.
Judge Rakoff: Congratulations, you've moved up from 11 to 1.
[After a time]
Deputy: Juror 11 is excused.

Update: The jury is selected - before lunch, as Judge Rakoff predicted, and contrary to multiday US v. Ghislaine Maxwell process which is now, post verdict, embroiled in scandal of Juror 50 / Scotty David.
Judge Rakoff's deputy says, Pick up your boxed lunch

And now, in Palin v NYT, opening arguments.
Palin's lawyer: Your feelings about Governor Palin or the NYT are irrelevant. Just give us a fair shot. This case involves a very specific false narrative about Gov Palin that was debunked. Let's go through the editorial

Palin's lawyer: Against a backdrop of a liberal shooting going after Republicans, there was a kneejerk reaction by some to say it was all political. But Governor Palin said, Don't blame Bernie Sanders. I know. This has happened to me. But the NYT did the opposite

Palin's lawyer: The NYT called the VA shooting, and the 2011 AZ shooting a sickening pattern. You'll learn from Mr. Bennet himself when he testifies that that is false. There was no evidence.

Palin's lawyer: Mr. Bennet in his email says, "I don't know what the truth is." That's the day after he published. That's reckless. Now he sends people to research it. He'll claim it was just a mistake. But then why do the research?

Judge Rakoff: Counsel, just so that you know, you have two minutes.
Palin's lawyer: We're going to show you a history of bias by the New York Times. You'll learn that the NYT has a policy against apologizing. They don't have to. They are the New York Times.

NYT lawyer: The NYT apologized. But it was not actual malice. Let's look back at 2010 - a PAC associated with Governor Palin, SarahPac, published a map with cross-hairs

NYT Lawyer: It was natural to try to connect those two shootings... Ms. Palin's name was not in the headline. A casual reader might skip right by it. There were four paragraphs about gun policy. This was not a political hit job. It praised President Trump

NYT lawyer: You're going to hear that Ross Douthat wrote to Mr. Bennet at 11 pm. Mr. Bennet said he never intended to convey that message. James started a process - the Times did not try to defend it, the Times tried to set the record straight in 12 hours.

NYT lawyer: Governor Palin is not claiming she suffered any economic harm as a result of the editorial. She went on to write books, she made paid speeches. She talked about running for office, just a few weeks ago. She was a TV star.

Judge Rakoff: Soon you can take your lunch, then hear my legal instructions to help frame things. But first, some housekeeping: don't discuss the case. Don't read or listen to the media about this. Don't try to do your own research. You'll get the real stuff here

OK - Palin v. NYT jurors are back from lunch.
Judge Rakoff: The plaintiff Sarah Palin claims she was libeled by an editorial largely written by the defendant, James Bennet. It would published online, then in the print edition the next day.

Judge Rakoff: Starting at 11:15 am, the Times published two corrections, stating no such link was established... Call your first witness.
Elizabeth Williamson, NYT reporter since 2018. "Now I'm a feature writer, based in DC." Previously on the editorial board.

Palin's lawyer: You were in a documentary?
Williamson: Yes, a Frontline piece about conspiracy theories. And another one about our post-truth culture.
Palin's lawyer: What do you mean by that?
Williamson: People disregarding established truths.

Palin's lawyer: Did you write about Governor Palin?
Williamson: I traveled to Wasila and wrote a blog piece.
Palin's lawyer: Have you ever met her?
Williamson: No.
Palin's lawyer: Then how did you write about her?

Update: Palin v. NYT trial day 1 is cover, and after cracking a few jokes at counsel table, Sarah Palin has put on her black raincoat. Inner City Press heading out to front of courthouse: another #FoleySquareFollies?