Palin v. NYT Jurors "Learned of the Court's" Decision Against Palin Before Rendering Verdict

"The jurors repeatedly assured the Court's law clerk that these notifications had not affected them in any way or played any role whatever in their deliberations."

From Judge Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) today in Palin v. New York Times:

It is the Court's uniform practice after a verdict has been rendered in a jury trial to have the Court's law clerk inquire of the jury as to whether there were any problems understanding the Court's instructions of law, so that improvements can be made in future cases. Late yesterday, in the course of such an inquiry in this case—in which the jury confirmed that they had fully understood the instructions and had no suggestions regarding jury instructions for future cases—several jurors volunteered to the law clerk that, prior to the rendering of the jury verdict in this case, they had learned of the fact of this Court's Rule 50 determination on Monday to dismiss the case on legal grounds.

These jurors reported that although they had been assiduously adhering to the Court's instruction to avoid media coverage of the trial, they had involuntarily received "push notifications" on their smartphones that contained the bottom-line of the ruling. The jurors repeatedly assured the Court's law clerk that these notifications had not affected them in any way or played any role whatever in their deliberations.

The Court also notes that when it proposed to the parties, during oral argument on Monday morning, to render its Rule 50 decision later that day but to permit the jury to continue deliberating so that the Court of Appeals would have the benefit of both the Court's legal determination and the jury's verdict, no party objected to this plan. Nor did any party object when the Court reconvened later that day, outside the presence of the jury, and the Court indicated that it was prepared to issue a Rule 50 decision at that time. Indeed, no party objected to this procedure at any time whatever.

Nevertheless, in an excess of caution, the Court hereby brings the foregoing facts to the parties' attention. If any party feels there is any relief they seek based on the above, counsel should promptly initiate a joint phone conference with the Court to discuss whether any further proceedings are appropriate.

Comments

[F.D. Wolf]

I had a conversation about this with someone yesterday. I suggested the judge had poisoned the jury with his declaration that Palin had not produced sufficient evidence, and he would throw out the case. This friend suggested that the jurors were unaware of the what the judge had said. I responded that I bet they were informed nearly immediately via their phones, as, in my experience, every time there is bad news for a Republican or conservative figure, Apple News seems to feel I must learn about it immediately.

[DaivdBehar]

NY Times doctrine is garbage. The Supreme Court must replace it with the Journalism Code of Ethics as a standard of professional care.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[TheAmazingEmu]

I think it’s problematic, but it strikes me as something that can be appealed either way on the basis of the Judge’s initial ruling. It seems, if the appellate courts decide the motion was improperly decided, they can next decide whether there was juror misconduct that also warranted a retrial. But, if the initial motion was correctly decided, all other issues are moot.

[Don Nico]

In other words, the Judge admits that he poisoned the well.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I don’t get why the judge did that. It surprised me. I also do understand that the judge had decided there was no well to poison.

I also do not understand why jurors who are not supposed to be reading media are allowed cell phones during deliberations.

[Illocust]

I’m going to give the judge credit for admitting it happened. Could have covered it up with no censure considering the target.

[Paul Alan Levy]

The jurors were not sequestered, and in any event telling jurors that they cannot have their cell phones so that their loved one cannot, for example, contact them to let them know of family exigencies, would put on awfully high price on jury service

[Stephen Lathrop]

Paul Alan Levy, what happened before cell phones?

[Dilan Esper]

We can’t turn back that clock, Stephen. Usequestered jurors aren’t prisoners.

[santamonica811]

Dilan,
I am pretty sure that jurors are *not* permitted to have cell phones during deliberations. Here in Santa Monica, you had to give your cell phone to the bailiff, and he would put one phone in a Baggie along with your name. Not sure about what happens during the actual trial.

In all the courtrooms I’ve been in (Santa Monica, LA, Beverly Hills, Culver City), if someone had a reason why they *had* to remain in touch (eg, a very pregnant wife, a very ill family member), the judge would give the direct courtroom phone number to that jury member, who would pass it on to the relevant parties. Given how many times a cell phone *does* ring in the middle of church, an in-person class, court (phone belongs to one of the attorneys), it’s kinda hard for me to imagine a judge being okay with allowing phones being left in the pockets of jurors…and that’s not even factoring in the risk that a juror might surreptitiously record witness testimony, juror discussion during deliberations, and so on.

[Absaroka]

” Given how many times a cell phone *does* ring in the middle of … court”

Heh …one of my jury memories was that the judge explained he fined people some substantial amount ($100??? been a while) if their phone rang in court. Every couple of days some spectator’s phone would go off. They would frantically turn it off, and would think they had got away with it. Then at the next break, e.g. bringing in a new witness, you’d see a marshal go over and whisper in the offender’s ear. That would be low key; my guess is he was asking if they’d step out for a friendly chat about their phone. It was all smiles. In a few minutes they’d return with grim looks on their faces. My assumption is they had found out the judge wasn’t kidding.

(as mentioned earlier, we collected phones at the beginning of the day once deliberations started. I don’t recall if that was also done during the trial or if people just left them in the jury room while in the courtroom)

[Dilan Esper]

I’m not talking about DURING deliberations. I’m talking about at the end of each day. Not returning cell phones to jurors at the end of the day would be highly unusual.

[santamonica811]

Oh, of course. Generally, I think you’d be 100% correct. But…now I’m wondering about those rare cases where a jury has been sequestered. If you’re locking a jury away from prying eyes, it would make zero sense to give them a cell phone, when that would undo the entire purpose of sequestration.

But I’m just applying my best attempt at common sense. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

[Dilan Esper]

Sequestered juries definitely do not get phones. But sequestered juries are absolutely to be avoided (and in high profile cases, sequestering doesn’t work anyway).

[Flight-ER-Doc]

There was no discernable reason for the judge to make his announcement when he did….except perhaps ego.

At any rate, clearly a poisoned jury. It doesn’t matter if the jurors claim they were not: The appearance of a fix is all it takes…

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

Exactly. The judge did not need to get involved at all here.

New trial should be ordered immediately.

[David Nieporent]

New trial should be ordered immediately.

That doesn’t make any sense. The jury verdict here was only advisory anyway. He’s granting JMOL to the NYT.

[Publius_2020]

I don’t think that’s at all what happened, or what he was trying to get away with. The Judge was trying to pretend that he was granting a 50b in order to preserve the potential reinstatement option on appeal. So it wasn’t strictly “advisory.” But he was really granting a 50a, thus mooting the jury verdict. He tried to have it both ways. (Whether that was dishonest or not, someone else can decide.)

The effect of his improper announcement strategy is that his ruling should be the primary order on appeal, not the jury verdict. That changes the standard of review. And if his 50a is reversed, there should be a new trial. He was trying to get away with a scenario where the primary order on appeal would the jury verdict, subject to the substantial evidence review.

[Dilan Esper]

This.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

I thought mistrial, until I read the judge’s claim that he had cleared his early decision with the plaintiff’s attorneys (as well as the defense attorneys). But why would the plaintiff’s attorneys agree to such a thing?
(2) Holding his decision until after the jury announced their verdict would have cost nothing.

[Absaroka]

“allowed cell phones during deliberations”

The judge made his decision on Monday, the jury reached their verdict on Tuesday.

If by ‘during deliberations’ you mean ‘in the jury room actually deliberating’, I doubt they had their phones there. The last time I was on a federal jury, anyway, the foreman collected phones every morning prior to deliberation starting. But you got it back at the end of the day, and I expect they got the news pushed that evening or the next morning over breakfast.

If by ‘during deliberations’ you mean from end of trial until verdict, I don’t think that would work on a couple of levels. For one thing, people use their phones to call for rides, pay fares, yadda, yadda. Secondly, it wouldn’t stop them getting news on their computers, the car radio, yadda.

Newspapers were pretty easy – I had the better half go through the papers with scissors[1]. But practically speaking, I don’t think you can prevent a juror hearing the start of coverage on the radio, or a headline in google news or whatever. Dutiful jurors will change the station/not click the link, etc. But I think that’s the best you can do.

[1]and save them for after the trial … the coverage was pretty inaccurate. Gell-Mann Amnesia indeed.

[Don Nico]

SL,
I agree with you about the cell phones. Their are many people who are not allowed to have cell phones in their everyday work. They survive quite well.
As for the judge, it does appear he may have wanted to open the doors wide to an appeal

[rsteinmetz]

My understanding is that cell phones are not allowed in that courthouse. I’d assume jurors had to give them up when they were in the courthouse, but they could probably get them back when they left for the day.

[MoreCurious]

It’s been a couple of years, but when I used to practice in the SDNY, lawyers — at least at 500 Pearl Street — had to leave their phones with the U.S. Marshals in a little room off the lobby.

[Joe_dallas]

There was some indication that the judge barred testimony showing that the editors the statement was false along with barring testimony that there was personal dislike by one of the editors (bennet?).

does any one have any confirmation?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I remember a few years back some judges sat en banc and ruled some guy would be president…several of the judges were appointed by that guy’s father!?! That guy went on to ignore terrorists while they were planning what would be a successful attack referred to as 9/11, lie America into a war, mismanage another war, sell us out to China, and crater the economy.

[Bored Lawyer]

“Bell rings, dogs salivate.” — Dr. Ivan Pavlov

[Bill Poser]

I don’t understand why the judge would take the risk of contaminating the jury as there was no virtue in releasing his decision to dismiss while the jury was still deliberating.

[Krychek_2]

Because doing stupid things is what humans do. Birds fly, fish swim, humans do stupid things. Even federal judges.

[Dilan Esper]

My guess is he wanted to go on the record with his opinion, for ego reasons (it’s a big case), and if the jury came back for the NYT he wouldn’t get to do it.

But this was remarkably stupid and obviously gives Palin a motion for new trial/appeal issue.

[Bored Lawyer]

“for ego reasons”

Good guess there. I have been before him repeatedly. He is a brilliant jurist, but his opinion of his own brilliance exceeds his actual brilliance.

[David Nieporent]

But this was remarkably stupid and obviously gives Palin a motion for new trial/appeal issue.

Again, obviously it does not. Let’s suppose the jury was planning to rule in favor of Palin, and he actually did taint their deliberations. What’s the harm, since he was going to be granting the NYT judgment anyway?

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, I am not defending Rakoff’s approach here. There doesn’t seem to be any good reason to announce his decision while they were deliberating.

But in order for her to appeal, she’d need to establish both that he tainted the jury and that his JMOL was wrong.

[CJColucci]

This is correct. Because Judge Rakoff granted the JMOL, whether the jury’s verdict was tainted is irrelevant. But it does mean that if the Second Circuit reverses on the JMOL, then there has to be a retrial, since there isn’t an untainted jury verdict to fall back on.
This was, however, an unforced error. I’ve appeared before Judge Rakoff a few times and was involved in a NYC Bar Association musical comedy roast of him, which he loved. He always thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, but he is right only 98.3% of the time. An ordinary hack judge would have reserved decision on the JMOL and waited to see if the jury would bail him out of having to decide. If it didn’t, he could grant a JNOV motion. If there were any possibility of settlement, the ordinary hack judge might express a leaning, and there are many ways to do that with varying degrees of subtlety, but leave it, in the first instance, to the jury and then clean things up on a JNOV motion. I have had other judges tell me as much.I’m tempted to say Judge Rakoff outsmarted himself, but I don’t see what he thought he would gain by this procedure.

[Dilan Esper]

This is correct. Because Judge Rakoff granted the JMOL, whether the jury’s verdict was tainted is irrelevant. But it does mean that if the Second Circuit reverses on the JMOL, then there has to be a retrial, since there isn’t an untainted jury verdict to fall back on.

And that’s what I mean by “gives Palin an issue”. It could effectively change the standard of review from clear error to de novo, which is enormous.

[Bored Lawyer]

The directed verdict is reviewed de novo.

Then, if Palin loses that, it is a question of abuse of discretion whether telling the jury about his ruling was right. Along with any exclusion of evidence.

Her chances are not great, but not impossible.

[Dilan Esper]

If he had waited, and jury verdict would have been entered in the Times’ favor, the jury verdict would have had an impossible standard of review on appeal. That’s why this changes things.

[Publius_2020]

“An ordinary hack judge would have reserved decision on the JMOL and waited to see if the jury would bail him out of having to decide.”

Well, that would be literally every single federal judge I’ve every tried a case in front of for 30 years. But yeah.

[HE Pennypacker]

Yeah, really. I would think most judges reserve ruling on JMOL to see if the jury gets it right.

[CJColucci]

Indeed,

[momo]

It wasn’t a “risk”. It was intentional.

Remember he tossed this case once before, and was reversed by the appeals court.

This was him sabotaging the case to get the result he wanted.

[Bored Lawyer]

Which, if the appeals court believes, could spur them to a reversal.

[wolfefan]

How did he sabotage the case, if announcing his plan to find for the Times gives Gov. Palin potential grounds for appeal?

[Vandalia]

What was the possible advantage for not waiting until the jury’s deliberations were completed?

[Publius_2020]

Exactly what happened… you influence the jury deliberation in the direction that you desire.

Had he reserved the motion as a 50b (like every other federal judge I’ve ever known), then he would have been forced to rule under 50b in contradiction to the actual jury verdict… which is an invitation for very close Court of Appeal scrutiny. This way, he hopes that the COA will treat the jury verdict as the primary ruling below for purposes of appeal and standard of review. It’s really no different than the judge telling the jury during final instructions that he thinks the plaintiff’s case is incredibly weak.

[Martinned]

Whose idea was it anyway to have the jury deliberate in the first place? 12 honest citizens wasted a whole bunch of time on a meaningless decision.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trying to guess, you might suppose that announcing the judge’s legal decision, while letting the jury dispose of the evidence, was the only way to make both points. The judge would have no opportunity to get his oar in the water if he just let the jury deliberation play out, and it came back against Palin. That would have been the end of it, except for a possible appeal.

Maybe the judge thought the posture for an appeal would seem notably less promising after he said no on the law, and the jury said no on the evidence. Still seems peculiar, though.

[santamonica811]

Stephen,
The judge certainly could have kept quiet, let the jury come back with it verdict.
1. Ruling for Palin. Judge then overrules the jury, as he (in this case) said he would do.
2. Ruling against Palin. Judge confirms this, thanks the jury for its service, and then adds this to his ending speech to the jury. “Based on the current law, I believe that you on the jury came to the legally-correct decision. In fact, if you had ignored the law and ruled for the plaintiff, I would have been forced to overrule that verdict! I am gratified that all 12 of you were able to put aside any personal feelings for or against both the plaintiff and the defendant, and that you were able to follow the law. I again thank you for your service.”

[David Nieporent]

It was his idea, and we discussed this the other day. They did not waste a whole bunch of time, since he didn’t make this decision until they were already deliberating. They wasted a small amount of time. But it potentially saved a large amount of time, by obviating the need for a new trial if the court of appeals reversed him.

[Publius_2020]

“by obviating the need for a new trial if the court of appeals reversed him”

If he really desired that, he should have shut his mouth and made a 50b ruling. But nooooo…. What this does is create chaos in the appeal.

[Purple Martin]

Nine jurors actually (civil action). Three stated they received a push news notification on their phones, and that it made no difference in their limited remaining deliberations. The the other six said they had not known of the judge’s decision before they completed deliberations.

Not sure of how much difference it will make.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is the judge paid by the hour or something?

[John F. Carr]

Sometimes I think appeals court judges are paid by the word.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe he suspects that one of the second circuit justices is dating his wife.

[mse326]

1. Ruling on the motion during deliberation was dumb
2. It may have biased the jury even if they don’t realize it, subconcious bias and all that.
3. If Palin’s lawyers never objected despite being warned I see no grounds for a new trial. Ruling at that time wasn’t obviously against the law, indeed it probably isn’t against the law at all. And while it would not surprise me if it had an affect, if the jurors are steadfast that it didn’t I don’t think there is an obvious bias of the jury. And IIRC there must be a clear violation to get relief when no objection is made.
4. HOW THE HELL DO YOU NOT OBJECT TO THAT

[John F. Carr]

It never occurred to me that the jury would learn about the ruling before delivering a verdict. In low profile cases they would not. Palin’s lawyer may be equally blind.

[Dilan Esper]

If Palin’s lawyers never objected despite being warned I see no grounds for a new trial. Ruling at that time wasn’t obviously against the law, indeed it probably isn’t against the law at all.

What’s the objection? The Court made comments on a pending motion.

I prosecuted an appeal early in my career where the trial court made a bunch of dumb comments. We lost the appeal on the merits, but the appellate court rejected the argument that there was a waiver by trial counsel for not objecting to every dumb comment at the time. You have to object to rulings and orders to preserve legal grounds, but this is different.

[Dilan Esper]

To be clear, you do have to move for a new trial on stuff like this. That’s how you preserve it. But you don’t have to object every time the Court makes a prejudicial comment, especially since you have no idea if you are even going to be able to show any prejudice.

[rsteinmetz]

Don’t understand why the Judge announced his decision before the Jury came back. He could have easily received the verdict, announced his decision, released his opinion then read the verdict.

[Bored Lawyer]

Right. This was a rookie mistake by a very smart and veteran judge. He could have read the verdict, and then granted judgment as a matter of law unde Rule 50(b).

[LawTalkingGuy]

When I saw he made his ruling before the verdict I thought he must have been weirdly impatient for some reason. It’s funny how litigation can drag on for a long time but a judge can get very impatient about something in a brief moment and not be able to wait a whole one and a half days for a verdict to do what they want to do.

[momo]

It was not a rookie mistake

It wasn’t a mistake at all. It was a calculated FU to the plaintiff and the appeals court that had previously overruled him.

[rsteinmetz]

Anyone expecting a motion for a mistrial?

[backbencher]

When Palin appeals, Rakoff might not get the deference normally accorded a judge’s courtroom management decisions, as he obviously didn’t like the libel case from the very start. Remember, he had dismissed the case at the pleadings phase, but was reversed by the Second Circuit in August of 2019. It sure looks like he had an ax to grind by prematurely announcing his ruling, and one might be forgiven for wondering whether the timing was intended to sabotage
the integrity of the jury’s deliberations.

[Joe_dallas]

Backbender – see my comment above – There was some indication that the judge barred testimony showing that the editors the statement was false along with barring testimony that there was personal dislike by one of the editors (bennet?).

Barring testimony critical to the case would be basis for appeal or at least demonstrate an axe to grind.

[David Nieporent]

along with barring testimony that there was personal dislike by one of the editors (bennet?).

And? Why would irrelevant information like that be allowed?

[Joe_dallas]

As I stated – there was indications that He barred both the testimony that the NYT editors know the statement was false – That would be a problem.

[captcrisis]

I don’t mind a mistrial with Palin making a fool of herself once again.

[captcrisis]

I take that back!

Some years ago I tried a case against a testosterone filled young former ADA in his first civil case. He couldn’t get his expert qualified (he didn’t ask all the right questions) and during a conference discussing the likelihood of a defense verdict the judge patiently explained to him what he had done wrong, for future reference.

The next day we adjourned with only one witness to go and while leaving the courthouse plaintiff fell down the stairs — and the jurors saw it.

Mistrial.

The second time around this guy would know how to properly qualify his expert. So we settled, for way too much $.

So —

Second time around Palin, even with her limited abilities, will probably after being “conferenced” (ahem) with her lawyer, come out looking better.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The judge could have easily held any arguments on the motion and/or decision until after the jury came back. There was absolutely no reason to do what he did. It did not change the procedural posture of the case or provide either party with any form of relief that wouldn’t have been available in the next few weeks. Now, instead, a gray cloud will hang over these proceedings and there is the possibility now both parties will have to do the trial all over again which is a complete waste of judicial economy.

[Moderation4ever]

I have to agree here. I wonder why the judge could not have held the announcement of his decision. He could well have made the decision, written it and held it till the jury completed deliberations. Then reported both at once.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The judge is a Clinton appointee and the left was really freaking out about the whole NYT trial. The amount of media malpractice I have seen with calling Sullivan and its progeny the “honest mistakes exception” has been amazing. I get it because the modern media-nistas are their propaganda wing and if they are going to be held to any real libel/slander standard that is actionable it is going to hurt their efforts there.

The media that existed when Sullivan was decided is simply NOT the media of today. But that doesn’t ever go into the consideration of the “living, breathing document” folks.

[Moderation4ever]

My comments were directed at the judge not the topic. The fact is that media slant did not just develop, it has been there since the beginning of newspapers. Everyone knew the local papers and what slant they had towards the news. What papers were for Democrats and what papers were for Republicans. If we open the door to libel lawsuits for papers it will not just be the NYT effected but almost every paper in the country.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe it will restore some journalistic integrity, who knows…..

Either way, people who have their life ruined by horrible reporting will finally have a chance at redemption.

[Eric VonSalzen]

This may not be the best case to revisit Times v. Sullivan, I understand that. But it certainly illustrates the problem with that precedent. Here we have a major newspaper stating as a fact a claim that had been debunked ages ago. Should that defamatory statement be protected because the particular writer didn’t bother to do basic due diligence about whether his accusation was true? When it was well known to informed people that such an accusation was false? And when the victim of the slander is NOT a current political office-holder but, at most, a political commentator?

[santamonica811]

Eric,
Sarah Palin is not only a former political figure, but she certainly has affirmatively acted to remain a public figure. I think the entire basis for any actual damages would be premised on some theory like, “I, SP, depend on being a public figure, in order to command top dollar for giving speeches, commenting on conservative media, etc. This false information about me hurt my ability to be a positive public figure, and has turned me into a negative public figure. (Or, at least, into a less-positive public figure.) This has cost me XYZ business opportunities, and XX dollars in lost earnings.”

Do you disagree with the above? If we’re relying on “Sullivan,” then Palin being not an official might be important. But aren’t we really relying on Sullivan’s progeny, which expanded the higher threshold to public figures?

I can imagine a minor-league social/political commentator who remains a private figure–at least, in regards to issues where she has not inserted herself into the debate. But no one here is saying that would accurately describe Sarah Palin, yes?

[Eric VonSalzen]

811, as I said, Palin is, “at most, a political commentator”. I’m not arguing that Sullivan and its progeny don’t apply to her. I’m arguing that Sullivan is wrong — or at least needs to be narrowed. If the Times didn’t know what it published was a lie, then it was reckless in failing to do due diligence. The untruth of the Times’ accusations was obvious to anyone who was aware of what happened to Giffords 20+ years ago. The same accusations were made back then, and were refuted. Everyone who was paying attention knew that. Presumably the Times assumed that enough of the public had forgotten the facts that they could get away with their false accusation. What public benefit is served by empowering news organizations to publish untrue accusations that defame political commentators with whom they disagree?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If protections are narrowed, most of the delusional, no-standards, birther-class right-wing websites (and Fox, OneAmerica, Newsmax, etc.) may cease to exist.

Hey, maybe these knuckle-draggers are right . . . psychotic, but absolutely right . . .

[Mike45]

Once the jury learned of the judges decision they should have refused to vote as their authority to decide had been usurped by the judge.

[KenveeB]

Or they can shrug, vote the way the judge told them to, and go home. Pretty much any juror will choose that option.

[Voodoo]

Have appeared before this judge and practice in this court. As others have noted, his regard for his own ego is well-known.

His order quoted above explaining the issue is particularly disappointing. It’s misleading. It’s presented as if it was an issue for parties’ counsel to object to as if it’s an evidentiary objection, or as if an objection would have swayed his decision making. I wasn’t there, and I’m not at all involved in this case, so I don’t know how the discussion went down or what the tone of tenor was. But I’d say as a general matter, if the judge is saying he’s going to do something that’s not procedurally improper and within his authority to do, it would be kind of unusual for counsel to step up and object to the judge doing so, unless you have a cognizable basis for doing so (say, under the Federal Rules or established case law). Maybe under the circumstances they should have, but the judge’s justification in his order is self-serving.

Of course, that the ruling was not per se improper, and that it’s within the judge’s discretion to do, is not the point. It was poor judgment and needn’t have happened, but for the judge’s own desire to take the risk of making it happen.

One more thing: this judge is fond of issuing bottom line orders, where he gives his decision but saves the opinion/analysis for aonther day (often months down the road). It’s rarely helpful to the parties or the administration of the case.

[David Nieporent]

I think a competent attorney would object. But I also don’t think it’s a waivable issue the way a jury charge or (as you said) an evidentiary ruling would be.

[Owen Taylor]

Isn’t it a bit egregious for Rakoff to issue this ruling after being reversed once by an appellate court? He should be disbarred.

[David Nieporent]

No, it’s not. And no, he shouldn’t be.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Mistrial, 100%.