craigkess: I find your assessment of my Wisconsin trial laughable, especially since I suspect you've never been in a courtroom while it was in session. There is a reason why trial judges tell their juries that the jurors are the finders of the facts. If all the facts relevant to a trial could be stipulated, no witnessed would be required, and the trial could be reduced to closing arguments. Naturally, many facts in a trial will be undisputed, but many other "facts" will be disputed.

My Wisconsin jury was not interpreting undisputed facts, it was resolving disputed facts by evaluating evidence through the prism of their individual life experiences and values, and with the benefit of the Judge's jury instructions. You can suggest that the two OJ Simpson juries had different "interpretations" of whether he committed murder, but each jury was asked to determine the fact of whether he committed murder, and their different life experiences and values brought them to opposite findings on that issue.

Judge Noreika's decision will likely involve more conclusion reaching than fact finding, but she's not a programed robot. -- so the factors I have written about will likely come into play to some degree.