Smartphone Push Notifications Taint Defamation Jury Verdict

• Pages: 2-3
• Date: 01 January 2025
• Published date: 01 January 2025
• Author: Kelso L. Anderson
• Subject Matter: Derecho Público y Administrativo

By Kelso L. Anders on, Litigation News Associate Editor

Smartphone Push Notications Taint

Defamation Jury Verdict

committee (PAC). The graphic was a map that superimposed

crosshairs over congressional districts, including the district

where the congresswoman was shot in 2011. After the edito-

rial was published, the defendants issued two corrections—the

rst stated that there was no causal link between the plaintiff’s

2010 PAC graphic and the 2011 shooting; the second made

clear the crosshairs overlaid on congressional districts and not

the congresswoman herself.

Defamation L awsuit and the Fir st Appeal

Notwithstanding the corrections, the plaintiff led the defama-

tion lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District

of New York. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), the defendants moved to dismiss. In considering the

motion, the district court held an evidentiary hearing—with

the defendant editor as the sole witness—to assess whether

the “actual malice” element of defamation was sufciently

pled. Relying on the testimony of the editor, the district court

granted the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Second Circuit

reversed and remanded the case, in part, because the lower

court improperly considered the editor’s testimony in conclud-

ing that the plaintiff could not prove actual malice.

Upon remand, a trial ensued. Following the close of evi-

dence but before deliberations began, the defendants moved

for judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

© Getty Image s

federal court has ruled that a former governor and

vice-presidential candidate was denied a fair trial

in a defamation case led against a prominent

newspaper and its employee. The U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit held the jury

was prejudiced because some members had received smart-

phone push notications during deliberations revealing the

trial court had granted the defendants’ motion dismissing the

case. ABA Litigation Section leaders agree that cell phone and

other technology poses a threat to impartial jury rulings and

trial practice generally but believe specic trial techniques

could mitigate the harm.

Political Editorial Sparks Defamation Accusation

In Palin v. New York Times Company, the defendants pub-

lished an editorial titled America’s Lethal Politics comparing

two politically motivated shootings from 2011 and 2017. In

the 2011 Arizona shooting, an individual killed six people

and injured thirteen—including a democratic congresswoman.

In the 2017 Virginia shooting, a constituent shot and injured

several people—including a Republican congressman. Soon

after the 2017 shooting, the defendants published the editorial

stating there was a “clear” and “direct link” between the 2011

shooting and the “political incitement” prompted by a digital

graphic published in 2010 by the plaintiff’s political action

WINTER 202 5 • VOL. 50 NO. 2

2 | A BA LITIGATION SECTION

TECHNOLOGY

Published in Litigation News Volu me 50, Number 2, Wint er 2025. © 2025 by t he American Bar A ssociation. Re produced with per mission. All righ ts reserved. Th is information or an y portion there of may not be copied or

disseminated in an y form or by any means or s tored in an electro nic database or re trieval system wi thout the express w ritten consen t of the American B ar Associatio n.