With respect to all:
I agree with Babe Ruth. I'm another retired attorney who has tried a great many jury trials. I offer no opinion on the case, because I have not seen the pleadings, did not hear the evidence, and don't know the facts. I do however know how trials and appeals work.
In our system of justice, it is the job of the jury to hear the evidence, weigh it, and determine the facts, including the credibility of witnesses and sorting out disputed facts -- and render a verdict, based on the law applied to those facts furnished by the court (the judge) in the court's instructions.
Any time a judge nullifies a jury's verdict because he finds they muffed the job of determining the facts, an appellate court will take a very hard look at that -- because neither the trial court or an appellate court has any business substituting its view of disputed facts for the jury's determination. On the other hand, legal questions (as opposed to fact questions) are purely the province of the court, (judge) and no jury is entitled to substitute its view of what the law ought to be for what the law actually is. That is for the trial court (the judge) initially to determine upon briefs of counsel, to be reviewed by the appellate court on appeal.
It is VERY difficult for anyone not thoroughly familiar with both the facts and the law in any given case to have an unbiased opinion about it one way or another. Certainly the press is seldom if ever a good source of information.
Landlocked in Denver, but cruisin every chance we get.
Polynesia, Carib. '86
Cr. Odyssey, Scandinavia, '91, 30 Day S Pac. 2002
Crystal Harm, Aust., N.Z., '94
Royal Odyssey, AK,'96
Old Cr. Pr. Canal, '97
RCCL, Carib, 1998
Volendam, Car, 2000
Ryndam, 35 day S. Am., Antarctica, '03
Is. Pr., Canal, 2004
Statendam, 34 day China, Japan, AK '06
Cr.Pr., Carib. 08
Eurodam, Atlantic, Med. '10