Guy arguing for the government:
"We don't yet know what the proof was. We never got a chance to put on evidence. We were essentially unceremoniously tossed out of court because we conceded that we did not charge the defendant with attempting to influence the outcome of a specific case. It could be that these defendants did act with the intent to influence a specific case. But even assumin could it be possible to sustain a conviction without proving that the defendant intended to influence the outcome of a specific caseWe think it could happen if the defendant intended to influence any in a class of cases that the juror could later be called upon to decide.
Let me Let's posit a defendant who If that defendant knows that there are two such cases scheduled for trials I think our prosecution can go forward..."