this is a matter of evidence. >> so lead defense attorney carl marlinga reminded jurors the defendant was on trial of murder. >> an adulterer is a person that does evil things but that does not necessarily make him a murderer. >> the victim's shoe could be seen. >> as for any hard evidence that michael george killed his wife in cold blood, the defense maintained it just didn't exist. witnesses. >> no. >> no forensics. >> nothing. >> nothing. nada, nothing that ties him to the crime. >> the jury, your honor, the people rest. >> just as in the first trial came that moment when the prosecution rested and the defense filed a motion saying, your honor, they haven't proved their case. >> there is no physical evidence which links michael george to the crime. >> but this time there was no for the judge to think about it. her ruling came in seconds. >> the court is finding that the prosecution has presented substantial evidence. the defendant teared up. there was enough evidence, the judge declared, to go forward. >> the conclusion, gentlemen, is that the motion is denied. so with that setback

after a couple of hohos it never crossed my minin >> carl marlinga was feeling better by the hour. >> i remember walking outsede with my client and saying this is obviously good news. i cannot lie to you. judges don't take this long to decide these motions. >> after hours of watching the clock go round, the defendant, out on $1 million n nd praying with his circle of friends and family in the hallway, the judge at last returned to the bench. >> the court has been reviewing this matter for approximely five hours, i think an extraordinary length of time to review any motion for directed verdict. >> he started, was there a case to be made for the defense's position. >> albeit, it could be argued that this evidence is marginal. then he seemed to point out the merits of the prosecution. >> this is in many ways the classic murder case. the jury t`en the jury could reach a finding of guilt. >> on the one hand, and the other. where was@the judge going? so the court, at this point, cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury. >> he decided for the prosecution. there was enough evidence

we are going get a new trial. >> carl marlinga and joe always believed in their client's innocence andnce to prove it. >> michael was devastated by the verdict. >> i didn't do this. >> suddenly he's got new life. suddenly he has faith again in the system. >> i think he had two things working. he had new evidence and unfairness in the closing argument on top of this real heartfelt feeling by judge biernat that an innocent man had been convicted. >> the county prosecutor eric smith wasn't buying any of it. >> the judge seemed to have directed that there be a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. he hung his hat on a lot of things and that was one of them. since the case began it appeared he was not comfortable with this case and what he did was set aside a murder conviction which was unheard of. >> smith was beside himself even though the controversial decision was backed by michigan's highest courts. >> you wait 18 years for justice, and you finally get justice only to have it -- the carpet pulled out from under you. >> after the 2008 guilty verdict, barb's brother had gone to

the state hadn't met its burden argued carl marlinga and asked for the judge for what's called >> when you just don't know you have to -- you have to pull the plug. you have to say that's it. >> and then it got really strange.r honor, the state has not proved its case. we ask that you dismiss it right now jury. it happens all of the time. >> right. and almost always you're rebuffed. >> that's right. and almost always you're rebuffed withiconds. >> that didn't happen here. >> no. intently for 20 minutes as defense lawyer argued that there was no way the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the the comic defendant was in the comic book shop with a gun in his hind. >> the trial judge is obligated to make a call to say whether or not there was sufficient ify this. >> prosecutor kaplan knew that by law the judge has to regard all evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution.seconds and queried with a brief citation of case law arguing why the case should go to the jury. >> the evidence presented to the question of fact to the jury whether michael george is the murd