The Court of Appeals' reversal of Scott Jensen's conviction doesn't end the case. He can be tried again. But it is not quite right to suggest, as at least one blogger has, that the court acted on a technicality that is unlikely to affect the outcome.
The conviction was reversed because the court of appeals concluded that the instructions to the jury amounted to a imposing a mandatory conclusive presumption on the issue of Jensen's intent to obtain a dishonest advantage. Briefly the court told the jury that using state resources to obtain would be a dishonest advantage but it did not sufficiently qualify that or otherwise make clear to the jury that it must still find that Jensen intended to obtain that disadvantage.
For this reason, the court also found that the trial court may have erred in excluding Jensen's testimony that he understood that the Democrats do the same thing. While, on remand, the trial judge is free to attempt to articulate a rationale for keeping this testimony out, it seems unlikely - given the court's ruling on intent - that he will be able to do so. Jensen's understanding of what the Democrats did, the Court of Appeals acknowledged, would seem to go to whether he intended to obtain a dishonest advantage as opposed to simply staying even.
Perhaps the court of appeals (rather belatedly in my judgment) has finally gotten at what has been wrong from the beginning with prosecuting political leaders for doing what all of them have done forever (and, yes, I include Chvala and Burke in this.)