Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
So you must believe that the jury instructions were wrong.
|
Yes I do.
In the first trial, the jury instructions said that "making available" was enough to count as distribution. Later, the judge admitted that that instruction was incorrect and ordered a new trial.
In the second trial, the jury instruction just said "distribution", but had no definition what-so-ever from the judge about what qualified as "distribution". During the trial, the plaintiff had absolutely no evidence that any actual distribution occurred.
The second jury found her guilty of undefined "distribution" where the only evidence shown was "making available". In my mind, that means the results of this trial are just as flawed as the first one. She was found guilty of the exact same thing as the first trial, which was already thrown out.