"In a case in which the plaintiff has failed to present on the facts of his case proper evidence for jury consideration, the trial judge may order the entry of a verdict without allowing the jury to consider it."
From what I've read, the judge in the Hutchinson case disallowed most of the evidence Earle had planned to present, deciding that the evidence was not properly admissible.
The stubborn Earle refused to drop the case (as it was political, you see), so the judge ordered the jury (who were not going to see any evidence) to render a not guilty verdict.
Earle then took the so-called evidence to a motel room and invited reporters to come in and look at it...essentially trying the case with the inadmissible evidence in front of the reporters, with no one else present to challenge anything.
Quite a piece of work, eh?
Earle is indefatigable in pursuing his goals. That as we have seen, can be a mixed bag, at once a character asset and flaw.