The impact of this verdict could be great for more reasons than one. First, the jury seemed to accept the argument of Hershberger's customers being "members" of a closed club and not the general public.Or did they? Second is the whole issue of jury nullification. As the Journal Sentinel wrote at the onset of the trial:
The farmer's fate could hinge on a legal tactic called jury nullification, under which jurors vote their conscience in a case regardless of the facts and the law. Hershberger's supporters have encouraged the tactic, although it's generally known that judges and prosecutors reject it.
Did the jurors really buy the defense's argument that Hershberger doesn't do business with the general public, or did the jurors decide to rule against a law they see as unjust? And if they did, is this the way supporters of legalized raw milk sales, and that includes me, want to see this battle won?