It’s a jury call, so not a precedent in the usual sense. No jury is bound by the decision of another, no court is bound by the decisions of a jury - other than in any single criminal case a jury acquittal is final.
The same exact facts can be used to convict a republican, and the fact that a juiry didn’t convict Sussman for the exact same thing is irrelevant.
Justice is naturally uneven. The rules are not applied equally. “Equal justice” is a self-serving myth, touted by the people who run the courts. They say it often, as though repetition makes it true.
The problem was that she wasn’t deciding on the basis of the facts at all...but simply that she didn’t think his committing the crime was worth bothering with in the first place.
That’s definitely jury nullification.
Id assume any settled case law one can point to in defense of a client must have some beneficial value. Basically a lawyer can rise and say even though the evidence shows guilty , sometimes there are mitigating circumstances when the lies dont matter...or are even necessary to protect the world.
But then again Im not a lawyer...