What precedents or statutes did the judge rely on when vacating the jury verdict in the Jusuf case?

1. Judge’s legal move: judgment of acquittal, not a retrial

Judge West overturned the jury verdict by granting a post‑verdict motion for acquittal (a judgment of acquittal), rather than ordering a new trial or vacating on procedural grounds; coverage frames this as the judge concluding the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The statutory and doctrinal claim in reporting: insufficiency of evidence

News accounts uniformly report that the focal legal basis was insufficiency of evidence — specifically that the State’s case “relied heavily on circumstantial evidence” and did not adequately link Yusuf to knowing participation in the alleged scheme ^[2]. Judge West’s written order, as quoted in press reports, said the court could not “dig through and work to interpret the volumes of evidence” to establish guilt by inference ^[2].

3. What the coverage does not show: specific statutes or precedents cited

Available reporting describes the judge’s rationale in factual and argumentative terms but does not quote specific Minnesota statutes, rules of criminal procedure, or appellate precedents that Judge West invoked in her order ^{[3] [1] [2]}. The articles summarize the legal theory (insufficient circumstantial proof) but do not reproduce legal citations from the opinion itself ^{[3] [2]}.

4. How outlets frame the legal standard —’beyond a reasonable doubt’ and inference limits

Multiple accounts quote West’s concern that the State failed to meet its burden beyond a reasonable doubt through clear inference from circumstantial evidence; the judge expressed that the factfinder (and the court on review) should not be required to assemble an inferential chain from voluminous material to reach guilt ^[2]. That language signals application of the standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence after trial, as described in the press coverage ^[2].

5. Reaction, appeal, and procedural consequences reported

Prosecutors have filed an appeal after the acquittal was entered; reporting notes that the Attorney General’s Office is contesting the judge’s decision ^{[1] [3]}. Coverage highlights political and public backlash in some quarters, but those reactions are commentary and not sources of legal precedent ^{[4] [5] [1]}.

6. Competing perspectives in the sources

Local reporting and legal summaries stress the judge’s role as gatekeeper on legal sufficiency, while opinionated websites frame the action as an overturning of a jury and cast it in political terms ^{[4] [5] [1]}. Newsweek and KARE 11 present the judicial reasoning about circumstantial evidence; partisan sites emphasize outrage and political identity of the judge ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

7. Limitations and what remains to be seen

Available sources do not include the full text of Judge West’s order, so the exact statutory or caselaw authorities she cited are not shown in current reporting ^{[3] [2]}. For authoritative identification of precedents and statutes the judge relied on, one must review the written order or docket entry itself — documents not reproduced in the articles summarized here ^{[3] [1]}.

8. How to follow up for the primary legal record

To move from reporting to the law cited, obtain the judge’s full order from the Fourth Judicial District court docket or the Attorney General’s appeal filings; the press pieces signal the legal theory (insufficiency of circumstantial proof) but do not print the court’s citations ^{[3] [2]}. Current news coverage documents the reason but not the specific statutory or precedential citations.