The next round in Governor Palin’s defamation tangle with the New York Times will rope in not only the Gray Lady but also the same district court judge, Jed Rakoff, who heard the last round. 

In their latest court filing, attorneys for the Alaskan laid out their arguments for why Judge Rakoff “contaminated” the jury by announcing that he planned to dismiss Ms. Palin’s libel case even as the jury was still deliberating its merits. The jury followed by saying it had reached the same verdict.

The strange denouement of Palin v. New York Times Co. set the stage for this new round of legal argument. 

In attempting to chart a course forward from Ms. Palin’s defeats by both judge and jury, her team is arguing that they did not receive a fair shot the first time around. In so doing, they are hoping that Judge Rakoff agrees with them that his own handling of the case warrants a fresh start.  

While Ms. Palin marshals no less than nine grounds for throwing out the verdict and granting her a new trial, the argument at the core of the case is what her attorneys call the “tainted verdict.” 

As they explain, “After their exposure to push notifications about the Rule 50 decision and the improper instruction, the jury soon reached a verdict for Defendants.” Rule 50 is the clause that empowers a judge to dismiss the case if she believes that the plaintiff has not met their burden of proof. 

When interviewed by a law clerk for the judge after the trial, some jurors acknowledged that they received these notifications while deliberating. Ms. Palin’s team argues that not only did this interfere with the jury’s impartiality, but that Judge Rakoff “talked to the press about this issue before informing counsel.” 

This effort to “ bolster the court’s rulings” would be a violation of the federal rules governing judicial conduct. 

Ms. Palin’s complaints about the trial extend not just to the fashion in which it was conducted but also to the substance of Judge Rakoff’s dismissal, which she contends “relies on a skewed, incomplete version of the facts that disregards significant evidence of actual malice” and was too credulous toward the Times.  

In seeking not only a new trial but a new judge to oversee it, Ms. Palin’s team concluded that “an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the events described herein occurring before, during, and after the trial of this action would entertain doubts about the Court’s impartiality.”

While acknowledging “public perception and speculation about possible larger implications of this case,” Ms. Palin’s side insists that its effort to disqualify Judge Rakoff and set aside his verdict is in pursuit of a “fair trial.” 

The Gray Lady’s response to this post-trial motion is due by April 12. Along a parallel track, Ms. Palin has already notified the riders of the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals to expect her appeal of both Judge Rakoff’s and the jury’s verdicts.