Well I think this link may help flesh out some of the mroe relavent facts in the case; caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/063666p.pdf
I am not sure if their is better information via the internet and I have read a few blogs which pulled this story to rail against the judge overriding the jury's verdict but I think it merits actually reading the case to get a feel on the relavent facts presented to the judge rather than jumping to a conclusion that this is a travesty of justice.  I believe that we could have some good discourse about our drug laws and also have a relavent discourse about the merits of punishment to someone who has a low IQ, which is one of the defenses brought by the defendent in this case.  But to simply grab this story I am left feeling angry at the judicial system as a knee-jerk response rather than weighing the fatcs in the case.  I am tired of being angry at the judicial system, I want good coverage of the facts so that we can have a discourse which might reveal better ways of doing things within this branch of government.  This is one of my cheif complaints when it comes to reporting, it would seem in all of our best interest to get as many of the surrounding factors weighted in the story to draw the conclusion that the title presumes to assert.

Is our justice system perfect? NO!  Should we allow jusges to override jury verdicts?  I am not sure this is a constitutional issue and I would hope to have a little more backround on the issue before weighing in on a decision.  But from a non-lawyer standpoint and with my relative backgrund in the constitution I say NO judges should not be able to overturn a jury of their peers verdict!

Maybe some of you guys can weigh in on this case and the issues that surround it?