In a recent case involving an accusation of extortion, a Federal judge set aside a guilty verdict by the jury.
Why was the case even being heard by a judge, rather than an appellate court?
From the news story, it appears that the judge was second guessing the jury, in other words he apparently decided the facts of the case did not merit a conviction. I thought the only time a judge or appellate court can reverse a jury on a question of fact was if there was a "gross miscarriage of justice". Has that standard changed? Can judges now set aside jury verdicts if they just disagree with the jury's interpretation of the facts?