Looking for input from some of the more legal savvy...

[Strings]

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/9759682.html

 This case hits a little close: one of our BACA kids was involved in getting this guy busted in the first place.

 The important part:

"Following a one day trial, jurors spent all of 30 minutes before it reached a guilty verdict against Mitchell Pask.

 

Following the conviction, Judge Timothy Van Akkeren ruled on a motion the defense made earlier to dismiss the case. The defense argued that prosecutors hadn't met the burden of proof saying the incident didn't take place in a secluded area, which is required for the charge." (emphasis mine)

 Is this possibly legal? I thought a judge had to rule one way or another on all motions BEFORE the case went to trial (unless a motion is brought up during). Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

[Matthew Carberry]

He might have been waiting to see if the jury voted to not convict based on the (claimed anyway, I haven't read the statute) failure to prove each element of the crime. 

Seeing that they instead voted to convict, apparently in error, he reversed their decision per the motion.

Juries can nullify bad law (in theory) by refusing to convict, but they can't convict in absence of the elements required to constitute the indicted offense.  If the DA for whatever reason didn't also indict for a "lesser included offense" that did meet all the facts, that's on the prosecutor.

If the law is just badly written, that's on the legislature, similar to many old statutes that state that "burglary" can only happen at night as that is explicitly part of the elements of the crime.

[Matthew Carberry]

-oops-

[K Frame]

No, motions to set aside the verdict are fairly common and can be carried through to the end of the trial. I think they can also be requested at the end of the trial after the jury has returned its verdict.

I think, though, that it's pretty rare for them to be granted.