[Cynical] "The reality is the law/precedent SUCKED. He had to follow precedent."]

Bs. He did NOT "have to follow precedent" - either for purposes of ruling that the prosecution made out a prima facie case
of the crimes charged, and certainly not on the subject of reasonable doubt and not guilty vs. guilty.

He came on here and admitted/stated that he essentially knew this had nothing to do with night hunting and AT MOST one of the young fellows peeled
a shot off at the stop sign.

A smart and wise judge will simply ignore totally bs "precedent" and do the right thing for the sake of fundamental justice and to protect the Constitution and people's constitutional rights. It could have been handled totally differently from the beginning, and the prosecutor on the case bears some responsibility on this also.