>>> FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN'S DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST "THE NEW YORK TIMES" JUST HAS BEEN REVIVED BY A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT. IT WAS FILED IN 2017 AND CLAIMED THE EDITORIAL BY THE TIMES WAS INFAMILIAR TORY BECAUSE IT LINKED HER TO THE MASS SHOOTING THAT KILLED SIX PEOPLE AND SEVERELY WOUNDED THE THEN CONGRESSWOMAN, GABBY GIFFORDS. THE RESPONSE WAS THIS DECISION IS DISAPPOINTING AND WE ARE CONFIDENT WE WILL PREVAIL IN A RETRIAL. THIS WENT TO TRIAL IN 2022, AND THE JURY, AS WE SAID, SIDED WITH THE TIMES. HOW DID THE APPEALS COURT COME TO THIS DECISION? >> THE JUDGE GRANTED A RULE 50 MOTION, AND THIS IS CALLED A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF WORDS. NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND IN FAVOR OF PALIN, AND THEN THE JUDGE ALLOWED THE JURY TO COME BACK AND THEY ENTERED A VERDICT OF NOT LIABLE. YOU MAY TAKE A STEP BACK AND SAY, WELL, THE JUDGE PREDICTED RIGHT, THE JUDGE SAID THE DEFENDANT, "THE TIMES," WINS, AND THE JURY COMES BACK AND SAYS THE TIMES WINS. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. THE JUDGE SAID NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND IN FAVOR OF PALIN, AND THE APPEALS COURT FOUND THERE WERE OTHER PROBLEMS INCLUDING THE EXCLUSION OF PALIN'S EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF NEWS ARTICLES SHE WANTED TO ADMIT, AND JURORS RECEIVING PUSH NOTIFICATIONS DURING DELIBERATION, AND THAT'S A PROBLEM. IF YOU ARE A JUROR AND DELIBERATING AND YOU HAVE GOTTEN WORD THE JUDGE ON THE CASE THINKS THERE'S NO CASE AND THAT PUTS YOU IN A DIFFERENT MIND-SET I WOULD IMAGINE, OR THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ARGUE IF I WERE PALIN. >> WHAT HAPPENS NOW? >> IT'S REMANDED. A NEW TRIAL. IT DOESN'T MEAN THE CASE WILL GO TO TRIAL BECAUSE ORDINARILY PARTIES WILL SAY IT'S A NEW TRIAL AND WHAT IS THE COST TO US, LET'S SETTLE. I THINK PALIN WANTS TO MAKE NEW LAWS. SHE PROTECTED JOURNALISM BY REQUIRING A HIGHER BURDEN FOR A PLAINTIFF TO PROVE WHEN THEY ARE A PUBLIC FIGURE LIKE PALIN TO MAKE THEIR CASE FOR DEFAMATION. SHE WANTS THIS CASE TO MAKE NEW LAW. THAT MIGHT MEAN CHALLENGING "NEW YORK TIMES" VERSUS SULLIVAN, A HIGHER BURDEN FOR PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE DEFAMATION, AGAINST JOURNALISTIC OUTLETS. >> GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT IS SURROUNDING THIS, IF IT IS RETRIED, COULD IT BE DIFFICULT TO SEAT A JURY? >> IT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT TO SEAT A JURY WITH A HIGH PROFILE PARTY, PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. BUT JUST LOOK IN NEW YORK CITY NOT TOO LONG AGO, THE COURT SEATED A JURY IN A MATTER OF DAYS FOR THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. DIFFERENT COURTS HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SUCCESS. ONE RICO CASE IN GEORGIA AND ATLANTA TOOK EIGHT MONTHS TO SEAT A JURY IN A HIGH PROFILE RICO CASE AGAINST A RECORDING ARTIST. HERE IN NEW YORK, THREE, FOUR DAYS TO SEAT A JURY FOR THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE. EVERY JUDGE APPROACHES IT DIFFERENTLY. BUT SOONER OR LATER WE HAVE LEARNED THAT WE ALWAYS CAN SEAT A JURY EVENTUALLY. >> HOW LONG COULD THIS TAKE? >> QUITE A LONG TIME. IF YOU READ THE APPEALS DECISION, THERE WAS A LOT OF EVIDENCE