Changes

Judge Narragansett, in charging the [[jury]] in that case, urged them, as strongly as the court rules allowed, to find for the defendant. He pointed out that qualifications on paper were only half the story of a loan application; the other half was risk, and Lee Hunsacker and his partners were, quite simply, bad business risks. And regardless of any particular person's grounds for assessing such risk, it was for Midas Mulligan and ''only'' Midas Mulligan to assess the risk that he should take. In Narragansett's view, freedom to trade included freedom not to trade, on any grounds whatever, rational or irrational.

Judge Narragansett, in charging the [[jury]] in that case, urged them, as strongly as the court rules allowed, to find for the defendant. He pointed out that qualifications on paper were only half the story of a loan application; the other half was risk, and Lee Hunsacker and his partners were, quite simply, bad business risks. And regardless of any particular person's grounds for assessing such risk, it was for Midas Mulligan and ''only'' Midas Mulligan to assess the risk that he should take. In Narragansett's view, freedom to trade included freedom not to trade, on any grounds whatever, rational or irrational.

The narrative does not describe fully any statute that might have applied in this case. Very likely such a non-discrimination statute ''did'' apply. In his jury charge, Judge Narragansett might have been asking, in essence, for [[jury nullification]], and letting the jury know that it had the duty to apply the Constitution ahead of any statute that might be violative of some of its guarantees, particularly of due process and equal protection of the law. (See the [[Full Text of the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|Fourteenth Amendment]] for details.)

The narrative does not describe fully any statute that might have applied in this case. Very likely such a non-discrimination statute ''did'' apply. In his jury charge, Judge Narragansett might have been asking, in essence, for [[jury nullification]], and letting the jury know that it had the duty to apply the [[United States Constitution]] ahead of any statute that might be violative of some of its guarantees, particularly of due process and equal protection of the law. (See the [[Full Text of the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|Fourteenth Amendment]] for details.)

Hunsacker's attorneys took exception to Judge Narragansett's jury charge, and appealed the judgment. The appellate court reversed the judgment. In real life, appellate courts do not normally change verdicts; instead they ''remand'' cases for retrial and/or reconsiderations of the points to which the appellant took exception. So the likely scenario is that the entire case was ordered retried before a second jury, with the further order that any charge to that second jury ''not'' include any appeal to jury nullification, but require the jury to follow strictly the letter of the non-discrimination statute.

Hunsacker's attorneys took exception to Judge Narragansett's jury charge, and appealed the judgment. The appellate court reversed the judgment. In real life, appellate courts do not normally change verdicts; instead they ''remand'' cases for retrial and/or reconsiderations of the points to which the appellant took exception. So the likely scenario is that the entire case was ordered retried before a second jury, with the further order that any charge to that second jury ''not'' include any appeal to jury nullification, but require the jury to follow strictly the letter of the non-discrimination statute.