The circuit court didn't find the evidence unpersuasive. Instructions can be cured, whereas presentation of evidence can't be cured.

You've got to question the judgment of the person. No lawyer would have his client in the dock calling potential witnesses. It could be very suspect in the minds of the jury.

At the end of the day a trial like this is a morality play. It is not just what happened, and who said what to whom, but who is an honest person.

The appellate court said there's a lot of evidence to bring the case again. But the risk is it appears to look vindictive. And if they lose, it puts in jeopardy the government's theories on obstruction of justice. They've already heightened the public consciousness about the necessity to preserve documents. A loss could communicate the message that it's difficult to prosecute these kinds of cases.

We turn up great evidence that stands up in court.

The court did not have a shred of evidence,