HYDE AMENDMENT DENIED

As I understand it, the trial judge gets to decide whether or not the Hyde Amendment can be used in the case.  After the prosecution is done with their portion of the case, the defense can file a motion and ask for a "summary judgment." The judge can stop the trial if he/she doesn't think there is enough evidence to obtain a conviction. 

In order for Judge Tarnow to allow a Hyde Amendment case to go forward he would have had to admit that he was wrong and made a mistake when he ruled that the case should proceed and go to a jury.

Does anyone else see a conflict of interest here?  This Amendment was to protect individuals against malicious prosecution, but it requires the trial judge to admit error.

Have there been any cases in which a person has recovered expenses under the Hyde Amendment after an acquittal?

David Ashenfelter thinks he may have committed a crime when he published leaked information covered by the Privacy Act, especially since he neither insisted upon proof the allegations against Rick Convertino were true, nor did he allow Rick the opportunity to prove they were false prior to publishing them.

Apparently, Judge Cleland thinks Ashenfelter may have committed a crime as well, and has granted his claim of 5ht Amendment privilege.