So the judge announced, prior to the Jury coming to its verdict, that she did not prove her case and he would set aside their decision if they ruled in her favor. In this day in age does anyone think the jury did not know this?
Grounds for an appeal.
What could be a more perfect interference with the function of a jury than for a judge to tell it, while it is deliberating, and however indirectly, what verdict it should render?
Palin should appeal based upon jury tampering by the Judge. The Judge could have not announced his intentions publicly and ruled after the jury returned its verdict. He announced it in advance knowing that the jury was not sequestered and would learn of his intentions.
No kidding...
And since when does someone get a free pass for damaging
someone’s public image, by simply saying, oops, we didn’t
mean to.
That may be the test, but then this sort of thing is
impossible to prove. Who is going to admit a dire objective?