Poohbah has explained that in the past.
But, the answer is none to his knowledge.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1330050/posts?page=81#81
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1330050/posts?page=61#61
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1317716/posts?page=160#160
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1305086/posts?page=711#711
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1305086/posts?page=510#510
That is five of the places he has explained it.
IIRC, he got it from someone in the U.S. Attorney's office who was handling the cases. And that was not the only case. At that point, all we are doing is having law enforcement harass businesses. I want my tax dollars spent better.
We passed a bad law that people DO NOT SUPPORT (a safe assumption when juries ROUTINELY nullify the law by acquitting defendants). And they didn't acquit because the penalties weren't harsh enough.
None of those links prove your and pooh's oft repeated contention that "juries routinely refuse to convict". Try again. I thought you were talking about Tyson or something. Not some obscure case in california, of all places, way back when clinton was still in office.