The jury deliberated for a little over two hours before reaching its verdict after lawyers for Ms Palin and the newspaper delivered closing arguments at a Manhattan federal court civil trial which is in its second week.
Ms Palin told the court on Monday that death threats against her increased and her spirits dropped after an editorial about gun violence said her political action committee had contributed to rhetoric that enabled an atmosphere of violence.
The Times corrected the article less than 14 hours after it was published.
Ms Palin was subdued as she left the courthouse for the final time and made her way to a waiting car, telling reporters: “I get to go home to a beautiful family of five kids and grandkids and a beautiful property and get on with life. And that’s nice.”
She said she had not yet discussed with her lawyers whether to appeal.
Kenneth Turkel, a lawyer for Ms Palin, urged the jury to find the Times liable for defamation on the grounds that its former editorial page editor, James Bennet, either knew what he was publishing was wrong or acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth.
He told the jury it should award Ms Palin compensatory damages for the harm done to her reputation and private mental anguish, adding that they should “find a number and let her get some closure to this thing”.
“To this day, there been no accountability,” he said. “That’s why we’re here.”
He told jurors not to be deceived by Ms Palin’s “bouncy” persona in the witness box.
“She doesn’t cry a lot,” Ms Turkel said. “It may have been to them an honest mistake. For her, it was a life changer.”
Ms Palin, who earned a journalism degree in college, sued the Times for unspecified damages in 2017, about a decade after she burst on to the national stage as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.
Her lawsuit stemmed from an editorial about gun control published after Steve Scalise, a Republican representative from Louisiana, was wounded in 2017 when a man with a history of anti-Republican activity opened fire on a congressional baseball team practice in Washington.
In the editorial, the Times wrote that before the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona that severely wounded former representative Gabby Giffords and killed six others, Ms Palin’s political action committee had contributed to an atmosphere of violence by circulating a map of electoral districts that put Ms Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylised crosshairs.
In a correction, the Times said the editorial had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting” and that it had “incorrectly described” the map.
A tearful Mr Bennet apologised to Ms Palin from the witness box when he gave evidence last week, saying he was tormented by the error and worked urgently to correct it after readers complained.
Felicia Ellsworth, a lawyer for the Times, said the jury could not find the newspaper or Mr Bennet liable because it would have to conclude that the error was intentionally published by editors who knew it was wrong.
“There’s not been one shred of evidence showing anything other than an honest mistake,” she said.
Ms Ellsworth said Mr Bennet and the Times “corrected the record loudly, clearly and quickly” once the error was discovered.
The lawyer pointed out that several Times editors gave evidence consistently about the effort to correct the error and the importance they placed on accuracy, while Ms Palin’s claims were “supported by nothing other than her say so”.
She added that Ms Palin’s status as a public figure meant the jury would have to find “actual malice” to find in her favour.
“To Governor Palin, this is just another opportunity to take on fake news. To James Bennet, the truth matters,” Ms Ellsworth said.
In February 2022, Judge Jed S Rakoff rejected Ms Palin’s claims in a ruling issued while a jury deliberated. The judge then let jurors deliver their verdict, which also went against Ms Palin.
The new trial came after the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan restored the case last year.
The appeals court said Judge Rakoff’s dismissal ruling improperly intruded on the jury’s work. It also cited flaws in the trial, saying there was erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and a mistaken response to a question from the jury.
