We think the jury was not allowed to see and hear all the evidence.

We have issues on jury selection and evidence.

In the first trial, wrong evidence went to the jury. It should not have, as confirmed by the court of appeal. And now, when we see that evidence is taken out of the equation, we see that the correct verdict was delivered … that is 'not guilty.'

I've been extremely disappointed to hear evidence for the last three days here that I interpret as a complete disregard of our election law, and the corrupt attempt, in my opinion, to prevent the public from knowing the source and recipients of contributions.

With the clear and incontrovertible evidence the state put before the jury, there wasn't much else they could have done.

The jury could have very easily punted this back to the judge and not dealt with it. But I think this was their way of saying they believed in their verdict.