> The jury’s verdict sets a major precedent in distinguishing between those producing and selling food to the public and those producing and distributing food t

> The jury’s verdict sets a major precedent in distinguishing between those producing and selling food to the public and those producing and distributing food through a private contractual arrangement (e.g., agreement with a food buyers club). No. Jury verdicts don't set precedent. Juries don't rule on questions of law. A finding by a judge that, as a matter of law, what he was accused of doing doesn't need a retail license (or whatever) would have set such a precedent. But that's not what happened: if it had, you wouldn't need a jury to decide whether, as a matter of fact, he did what he was accused of. A jury finding that someone didn't commit murder doesn't set a precedent that murder is legal.