The case was indeed remanded to district court with order to "dismiss."
Exactly. It was remanded (sent back to the lower court with instruction) to the district court with order to dismiss... due to ripeness, not merit.
This is my main point. The merit does not disappear just because the case was not ripe. Too many people say one can not exist without the other. That is false.
This was not a "mistrial." There was no determination of foul play, witness tampering, perjury, etc. The discovery and testimony happened, and still exist as a matter of record. The fact that a jury (who did not know the case was not ripe at the time) handed down a verdict of guilty does not disappear. There is plenty of ammunition from the first DFR case that can and certainly will be harvested by the west if DFR#2 comes to pass.
I agree that the previous guilty verdict does not play a legal role in a future case since a new judge and jury may or may not have the same evidence or interpretation of the facts. The west can't just say, "look they were guilty the first time, therefore they are guilty again." But contrary to the assertions of some, DFR #1 and all that went along with it, does not vanish into thin air as if it never happened. A person who stands in front of a judge for a crime, having a history of being accused of the same crime in the past although never convicted, will certainly be looked upon differently than a person with a squeaky clean record. Especially to a jury of his peers. That's just the way the world often works.
My second point is that by taking the chance and filing the case "prematurely" the west, at a very minimum, guaranteed the statute of limitations would not expire, depriving USAPA of a possible dismissal on that particular technicality in the future. Just like chess, it's a calculated move. It is not a waste of $2M by any means based on those two points. Some say the East has wasted their time and money defending the indefensible. As we all know, wastefulness is in the eye of the beholder.
A final thought on court proceedings and the law. As pilots we are used to things being black or white. It's SOP or it's not. It's on the checklist or it's not. In law there are often various interpretations and different criteria to meet. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt, or just a preponderance of the evidence? People have been found guilty of crimes without ever finding the "smoking gun." There are technicalities. There are loop holes. There's ripeness. There's merit. There's always another appeal on the horizon. This is why no one can predict with complete certainty, the outcome of any of this.
