Judge And Jury Say Sarah Palin Failed To Prove 'Actual Malice' In Defamation Case Against The NY Times

from the because-she-didn't dept

The last time we wrote about Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the NY Times was in 2017 when Judge Jed Rakoff was dismissing the case, noting that Palin had failed to show "actual malice," by the NY Times, which is the necessary standard under the seminal defamation case (also involving the NY Times), NY Times v. Sullivan. However, two years later, the appeals court ruled that Rakoff violated procedural rules in doing so, and reinstated the case. It's been three years since then and over the past few weeks an actual trial was held -- which is extraordinarily rare in defamation cases.

The "actual malice" standard is both extremely important and widely misunderstood. It does not mean that the speaker/publisher "really disliked" the subject or wanted to get them. It has a distinct meaning under the law, which is that that the publisher/speaker either knew it was false at the time of publication, or that they posted it with "reckless disregard" for whether it was true or false. And, again, people often misunderstand the "reckless disregard" part as well. It does not mean that they were simply careless about it. For there to be reckless disregard, it means that they had to have substantial doubts about the truth of the statement, but still published it.

In other words, for defamation of a public figure, you have to show that the publisher/speaker either knew what they were writing was false, or at least had strong reasons to believe it was false, and still went ahead with it. This is extremely important, because without it, public figures could (and frequently would) file nonsense lawsuits any time some small mistake was made in reporting on them -- and small mistakes happen all the time just by accident.

But, still, the Palin case went to trial and before the jury even came back, Judge Rakoff announced that, as a matter of law (which the judge gets to rule on) Palin had failed to show actual malice. The oddity here was that he did so while the jury was still deliberating, and allowing the jury to continue to do so. The next day, the jury came to the same conclusion, finding the NY Times not liable for defamation, as a matter of fact (juries decide matters of fact, judges decide matters of law -- and it's nice when the two agree).

It seems likely that Palin will appeal, in part because there are a contingent of folks in the extreme Trumpist camp -- including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and some of his close friends who have been campaigning over the past few years to over turn the "actual malice standard" found in the Sullivan case.

As many observers have noted, this case is probably not a very good test case for that question, but that doesn't mean Palin won't try to make it just such a test case -- and even if it's a weak case, we should be watching closely as any such case moves through the courts -- as they are, inherently, attacks on free speech. Weakening the actual malice standard would be a way for the powerful to more easily silence the powerless who speak up against them. The "actual malice" standard is a key element of strong free speech protections -- and attempts to weaken it are attacks on free speech.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, actual malice, defamation, free speech, jed rakoff, nyt v. sullivan, sarah palin
Companies: new york times

Federal Court Says ICE Can No Longer Enter New York Courthouses Just To Arrest Alleged Undocumented Immigrants

from the why-isn't-ICE-abolished-yet? dept

Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York isn't one to suffer the federal government's many fools. Five years ago, Rakoff resigned from the DOJ's rigged forensics committee -- one supposedly formed to tell the DOJ what it was doing wrong when analyzing and testifying about forensic evidence. Rakoff received a personal call from the DOJ's Deputy Attorney General who told him the Commission would not be examining the handling of pre-trial evidence. In other words, the Commission could not make any recommendations about disclosures about means and methodology used by forensic investigators to defendants prior to trial. Rakoff resigned, calling out the government for its "trial by ambush" practices.

More recently, Judge Rakoff demanded to know why every single one of the DEA's 179 reverse sting operations targeted minorities. The stings involve the DEA telling targets a shipment of drugs is coming in and how to intercept it. There are no real drugs arriving and the DEA swoops in to arrest people for attempting to make off with nonexistent drugs. It then uses the imaginary amount of drugs to recommend prison sentences. Somehow, the fake amount always clears the bar needed to demand a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence.

Judge Rakoff is back and he's still angry. He's been handling litigation over ICE's nasty practice of camping out at courthouses to arrest people for immigration violations. ICE figures this is a great place to find people because they're compelled to show up. Immigration agents aren't just picking up accused criminals. They're also hauling off witnesses and crime victims. (h/t Courthouse News Service)

The lawsuit was filed by the New York State Attorney General, who sought an injunction blocking ICE agents from trolling state courthouses for undocumented immigrants. ICE has been blocked, and Judge Rakoff wastes no time excoriating the agency for its actions. From the opening of the decision [PDF]:

Recent events confirm the need for freely and fully functioning state courts, not least in the State of New York. But it is one thing for the state courts to try to deal with the impediments brought on by a pandemic, and quite another for them to have to grapple with disruptions and intimidations artificially imposed by an agency of the federal government in violation of long-standing privileges and fundamental principles of federalism and of separation of powers.

The ruling points out ICE never used to be this way. But Trump's Executive Order, released shortly after he was elected, gave ICE the idea its earlier reluctance to look completely evil was going to limit its ability to aggressively pursue the foreign baddies the US president clearly wanted removed. Arrests at New York state courthouses leapt from 28 in 2016 to 161 in 2017. In 2019, the total was 173 arrests.

The judge says ICE has been completely disruptive to the judicial process.

Plaintiffs have also submitted substantial evidence indicating that these arrests, in addition to their impact on litigants, undermined the orderly functioning of New York courts themselves. Because ICE arrested aliens as they were entering court for scheduled proceedings, the agency forced courts to adjourn proceedings at the last minute, wasting scarce judicial time and resources. Similar results occurred when ICE failed to produce a criminal defendant for a scheduled conference. Even worse were those occasions when ICE conducted an arrest in the courthouse itself, resulting in “complete chaos," as well as physical damage, Finally, ICE further undermined the interests of justice by arresting and deporting criminal defendants who were appearing in court in connection with their own cases, thereby ensuring that these defendants never faced justice for their crimes.

After discussing the Executive Order and previous laws governing ICE enforcement activities, Judge Rakoff says there's nothing in any of it that suggests it's lawful to interrupt court proceedings to perform arrests for civil violations, much less prevent crime victims and witnesses from participating in the justice system.

[F]or all the reasons previously explained, courthouse civil arrests are not lawful, because they contravene the common-law privilege, which the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] is best read to incorporate, that protects courts and litigants against these intimidating and disrupting intrusions. Regardless of what ICE may have believed, then, the Executive Order in fact did not compel the agency to undertake its vast broadening of the scope of courthouse arrests. To the contrary, by its use of the term “lawful,” it effectively forbade such unlawful intrusions.

These arrests are illegal, Judge Rakoff says. And ICE has offered nothing in defense of its increased presence in state courtrooms that says otherwise.

[ICE] has effectively offered no rationale other than its misguided reliance on the Executive Order for its consequential decision to expand its agents’ authority to conduct courthouse arrests. Although the Directive itself makes conclusory references to the “reduce[d] safety risks” of conducting arrests in a place where people are screened for firearms, and the “unwillingness of jurisdictions to cooperate with ICE in the transfer of custody of aliens from their prisons and jails,” the record contains no explanation of how the agency balanced any such benefits against the harms of the policy discussed above.

ICE is now frozen -- blocked from entering New York courtrooms to grab potential detainees. Rakoff says the policy -- as enacted by ICE since 2017 -- is illegal. It not only prevents ICE from entering courtrooms to effect arrests but also prevents ICE from detaining people traveling to state courthouses as parties or witnesses to civil lawsuits. ICE will probably appeal this because it seems to believe inflicting misery is part of its directive, but, for now, it will have to limit itself to raiding dozens of other places to grab people suspected of civil violations.

Filed Under: courthouses, deportation, ice, immigration, jed rakoff, new york, undocumented

Federal Judge Asks DEA To Explain Why All 179 Of Its Stash House Sting Targets Are Minorities

from the stings-themselves-still-problematic-even-without-the-bias dept

Federal judges appear to be tiring of the government's long-running entrapment programs. One of the federal law enforcment's favorite "enforcement" efforts is creating crime in order to bust "criminals." Agencies like the ATF and DEA find someone in need of cash -- usually a minority someone -- and use undercover agents and confidential informants to convince them to raid a drug stash house for some easy money.

The twist is the drug stash house is fake. There are no drugs. There are no armed guards protecting the drugs. Once the mark arrives with a weapon and a plan of attack, the ATF arrests the person for thinking about robbing a fake stash house to steal nonexistent drugs.

The other twist is the prosecution. Since the drugs never existed, the ATF is free to claim the targeted stash was large enough to trigger mandatory minimum sentences.

A handful of judges have already found stash house stings to be a questionable use of government resources, if not ultra-shady operations that put the government in the position of being the judge and the jury by fabricating drug amounts to ensure longer sentences are handed down.

Here's what federal judge Ruben Castillo had to say about stash house stings:

It is undisputed that between 2006 and 2013, the defendants charged in this District in the ATF false stash house cases were 78.7 black, 9.6 percent Hispanic, and 11.7 percent white. During this same period, the District's adult population was approximately 18 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic, and 63 percent White. These numbers generate great disrespect for law enforcement efforts. Disrespect for the law cannot be tolerated during these difficult times. It is time for false stash house cases to end and be relegated to the dark corridors of our past. To put it simply, our criminal justice system should not tolerate false stash house cases in 2018.

Castillo also noted that the government never engaged in this type of borderline entrapment during the darkest days of Prohibition.

[E]ven during the low points of the great violence caused by the alcohol wars of Prohibition, the ATP did not seek to use "false alcohol warehouse" tactics against any ethnic organized crime groups to promote public safety.

Judge Jane Stranch's words -- written for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals -- were no less harsh.

The unseemly nature of the Government’s activity is emphasized by its failure to achieve its declared goals of jailing dangerous criminals and making our streets safer. Evidence showing that these hurry-up set-ups achieve the stated goals was not proffered and the facts here demonstrate why: no known dangerous individuals or criminal enterprises were researched or targeted and no pre-existing drug rings or conspiracies were broken up. In fact, this sting trapped Flowers, a gainfully employed young man with no criminal record.

Unfortunately, the court found no way to reverse the sentence handed down. The barriers to a successful lawsuit against a federal government agency are almost insurmountable, and the ATF knows this, so it has no reason to stop performing the laziest form of "enforcement" it can engage in.

Judge Otis Wright tore into the ATF in his decision as well:

In these stash-house cases, the Government’s “participation in the offense conduct” is what makes them particularly repugnant to the Constitution. Everything about the scheme—and therefore almost everything bearing upon a defendant’s ultimate sentence—hinges solely on the Government’s whim. Why were there not 10 kilograms in the stash house? Or 100? Or 1,000? Why were the guards allegedly armed—necessitating that Defendants bring weapons along with them? All of these factors came down to the ATF and the undercover agent alone. That sort of arbitrariness offends the Constitution’s due-process demands.

The end result was only five years shaved off the defendant's 19-year sentence -- a sentence that rested solely on the ATF's claims about the total weight of the nonexistent drugs in the nonexistent stash house the defendant never raided.

Perhaps the remedy lies somewhere earlier in the process, well before mandatory minimum sentences -- prompted by government agents' claims about nonexistent drugs -- are imposed. Judge Jed Rakoff is demanding the government produce some evidence that its stings don't primarily target minorities.

This case involves a DEA sting operation utilizing a number of fictitious drug shipments. They follow the same pattern as the ATF's stings. The government approaches its marks and tries to talk them into robbing fake drug dealers of their fake drugs. Then it swoops in and arrests its dupes the moment they start moving forward with robbery suggested by the government.

The opening paragraph of the order [PDF] makes it clear Judge Rakoff thinks these stings are bullshit:

By their very nature, so-called "reverse sting" operations, in which the Government creates the illusion of crimes in order to catch would-be criminals, are open to potential abuse, since they are not cabined by the demands of reality, but only by the vagaries of imagination.

The seven defendants in this case -- all "men of color" -- are arguing the government is engaging in selective enforcement by primarily targeting minorities with sting operations. Judge Rakoff appears to think that might be true. Or, at the very least, the government should be obliged to explain why every single one of its sting efforts result in arrested minorities.

After some discussion about which discovery standard should be applied to selective enforcement allegations, the court comes to this conclusion:

[T]he appropriate standard is that where a defendant who is a member of a protected group can show that that group has been singled out for reverse sting operations to a statistically significant extent in comparison with other groups, this is sufficient to warrant further inquiry and discovery.

Here, defendants have presented evidence that not a single one of the 179 individuals targeted in DEA reverse sting operations in SDNY in the past ten years was white, and that all but two were African-American or Hispanic. This is in stark contrast to the racial makeup of New York and Bronx Counties, which are 20.5% African-American, 39.7% Hispanic, and 29.5% White. This is also in contrast to NYPD crime and enforcement data for felony drug arrests (42.7% African-American, 40.8% Hispanic, and 12.7% White), firearms arrests (65.1% African-America, 24.3% Hispanic, 9.7% White), and robbery arrests (60.6% African-American, 31.1% Hispanic, 5.1% White).

And, just in case the government wants to argue this is merely a statistical fluke, the defendants also have some expert testimony they'd like the DEA to attempt to rebut.

Furthermore, defendants have provided compelling expert analysis demonstrating that these numbers are statistically significant. According to a rigorous analysis conducted by Dr. Crystal S. Yang, a Harvard law and economics professor, it is highly unlikely, to the point of statistical significance, that the racially disparate impact of the DEA' s reverse sting operations is simply random.

Here's how Yang explains the unlikeliness of 177 of 179 targets being "randomly" Black or Latino:

[U]nless the pool of similarly situated individuals is comprised of at least 96.0% Latinos or Blacks~ it is highly unlikely that one could get a sample of 179 targeted individuals where 177 or more individuals are Latino or Black.

The government will need to produce paperwork showing how it initiates stings and how it decides on sting targets.

Accordingly, and for now, discovery will be limited to the Government providing to the defendants, by no later than November 22, 2019, (1) all DEA manuals, circulars, protocols, and the like that provide guidelines for how and when reverse stings should be originated; and (2) all notes, memoranda, or other investigative material showing how defendants were identified and evaluated as targets in this particular reverse sting operation.

It's unlikely anything turned over by the DEA will say "exclusively target Latinos and Blacks." But this won't help the government, which will still need to explain how guidelines and protocols that don't insist on targeting minorities seem to produce nothing by minority defendants. And if it can't explain that to Judge Rakoff's satisfaction, the claims of selective enforcement will move forward.

More judges should push back against "reverse sting" operations. There's been no evidence offered these operations do anything more than put harmless people behind bars for years. When the targets are fake drugs and fake drug runners, zero drugs/drug runners are being taken off the streets.

Filed Under: dea, doj, entrapment, jed rakoff, racism, stash houses, targeting minorities

Judge Resigns From Forensic Science Committee, Calls Out DOJ's 'Trial By Ambush' Tactics

from the you're-free-to-'discover'-this-evidence-AFTER-it's-been-used-to dept

Law enforcement agencies -- including the FBI -- haven't put together the best track record when it comes to forensic evidence. The issues range from fraud to the deployment of junk science. This has led to several wrongful imprisonments. This has also led to the government seeking to address these problems in a very "government" sort of way -- by convening a committee to study the issue, headed by the DOJ.

Issues were found, but the DOJ doesn't want to talk about them. The problems it doesn't want to talk about were a fundamental part of the committee's purpose.

The panel was created to improve the overall reliability of forensic evidence after instances of shoddy scientific analysis by federal, state and local police labs helped convict suspects.

Were. But no longer. This change is what prompted the only federal judge (Judge Jed S. Rakoff) on the committee to resign (after learning of it via an evening phone call from the Deputy Attorney General). From his letter of resignation:

Last evening, January 27, 2015, I was telephonically informed that the Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice has decided that the subject of pre-trial forensic discovery -- i.e., the extent to which information regarding forensic science experts and their data, opinions, methodologies, etc., should be disclosed before they testify in court -- is beyond the “scope” of the Commission’s business and therefore cannot properly be the subject of Commission reports or discussions in any respect.

Which is contrary to the committee's goals. To fix broken forensics, you need to fix the discovery aspects. The government would rather keep both its bad forensics and broken discovery procedures because it gives it an advantage when it comes to prosecution.

Because I believe that this unilateral decision is a major mistake that is likely to significantly erode the effectiveness of the Commission -- and because I believe it reflects a determination by the Department of Justice to place strategic advantage over a search for the truth -- I have decided to resign from the Commission, effective immediately. I have never before felt the need to resign from any of the many committees on which I have served over the years; but given what I believe is the unsupportable position now taken by the Department of Justice, I feel I have no choice.

Rakoff points out elsewhere in his resignation letter that defendants in criminal cases are perpetually disadvantaged during forensic discovery.

As the federal rules of criminal procedure now stand, prosecutors who intend to call forensic experts to testify do not have to supply the same full pre-trial discovery about those experts and the methodological and evidentiary bases for their opinions that parties calling forensic experts in civil cases are required to supply under federal rules of civil procedure.

The DOJ likes its strategic advantage and doesn't want Rakoff screwing with it. You say you want due process? Too bad. As a criminal defendant in today's justice system, you're little more than a bullet catcher for prosecutorial gunslingers.

The notion that pre-trial discovery of information pertaining to forensic expert witnesses is beyond the scope of the Commission seems to me clearly contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Commission’s Charter… A primary way in which forensic science interacts with the courtroom is through discovery, for if an adversary does not know in advance sufficient information about the forensic expert and the methodological and evidentiary bases for that expert’s opinions, the testimony of the expert is nothing more than trial by ambush.

There's supposed to be equitable sharing and access to anything uncovered during discovery. But there obviously isn't. Rakoff recognized this and made his opinion known to the DOJ. Law enforcement agencies have apparently grown used to dealing from the bottom of the discovery deck and the United States' Deputy DA wants this privilege to remain intact. (See also: Judge Kozinski's dissenting opinion, which called out prosecutors for their "epidemic of Brady [exculpatory evidence] violations." It's not just junk science and fraud. It's also the withholding of evidence that could clear a person facing criminal charges.)

Rakoff's strongly-worded resignation letter (which has been published in full all over the internet) has led to a very minor concession from the DOJ.

However, Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates invited Rakoff to return, saying she had not been aware the commission had worked openly on its plans for nearly a year.

Yates told the National Commission on Forensic Science that “it seemed only fair” that it “make its determination as to what information should be provided to the Attorney General.”

“This is obviously a critically important issue to the Department,” Yates said. “We take very seriously our obligation to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial."

Except that its original conversation with Judge Rakoff indicates that it would rather do anything but "ensure… defendants receive a fair trial." But its "trial by ambush" intentions were exposed by Rakoff's public resignation and it had no choice but attempt to paper this over with some honorable-sounding words.

While committing to nothing, and mouthing the empty platitudinous “We take very seriously our obligation to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial,” which is a corollary to “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help,” at least one honorable person will sit on the committee to see whether this rises to the level of serious reform.

So, Judge Rakoff is back on the panel. Hopefully, this will lead to a change in the system and a public release of information relating to law enforcement's forensic failings. This nation seems to have no shortage of zealous prosecutors who are willing to secure convictions at the expense of true due process. The balance needs to shift back to the center. Judge Rakoff's resignation has brought this long-running problem back out into public eye -- along with the DOJ's apparent desire to keep its ambush tactics from being disrupted.

Filed Under: attorney general, doj, forensic evidence, forensics, jed rakoff