Judge West ruled that the state’s case “relied heavily on circumstantial evidence,” and that she believed the state didn’t rule out other “reasonable inferences.”
1. All cases rely on circumstantial evidence of some sort. But relying "heavily" is not the same as relying "solely". So clearly, there was other evidence - concrete evidence - which the jury relied upon, such as billing for services never provided.
2. It is not the prosecution's job to rule out "reasonable inferences". It is defense counsel's job to introduce 'reasonable inferences' in order to stir up reasonable doubt against the prosecution
s case.
This judge is way out of bounds here. While she does have the power to overturn the verdict, she does not have a legally valid argument for doing so.