Here's what's strange. In his jury instructions the judge provides a definition of "secluded area" as "a place screened or hidden from view or remote from others."
The jury, presumably, found that that definition was met.
The judge decided that it was not met, and the jury be damned.
Something seriously awry there.... There's got to be more to the story, somewhere.
Here's what's strange. In his jury instructions the judge provides a definition of "secluded area" as "a place screened or hidden from view or remote from others." The jury, presumably, found that that definition was met. The judge decided that it was not met, and the jury be damned. The judge should be reversed. The judge interprets the law, the jury has final say on the facts. If the jury, hearing the legal definition, found that the place met the definition, then the judge may not overrule that finding of fact