The judge could easily dispense with this issue by issuing a very brief ruling and stating simply a case has not been made for a new trial. That would be the end of that. Yet, he hasn't done that and the more time he takes the more the likelihood of a well reasoned opinion as to why a new trial is warranted. Clearly something is bothering this judge.
Cisco's main argument is that VHC was obligated at law to request a (mistrial) before the case went to the jury or accept the decision of the jury. I stated in another posting that this is not accurate and VHC was clear at the hearing that the failure to declare a mistrial before the case goes to the jury does not obviate the request for a new trial.
Because it was Cisco's main line of defense, I was sure the topic would be central to the court hearing on June 17th. To make a baseball analogy , if you know the pitcher is going to give you a fast ball, you are prepared and able to hit it more easily. Unfortunately, I thought VHC could have given a better response to the question which was bound to be asked...."Why didn't you request a mistrial?"
In any event, the longer the judge takes, the greater the possibility that we get a do-over.