U.S. District Judge Michael Davis has declared a mistrial in the case of Jammie Thomas, who last year was convicted of copyright infringement and fined $222,000 for sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa network. In doing so, Judge Davis took direct issue with the fact that the RIAA argued against having to provide any proof that the songs were actually downloaded from Thomas’ computer in order to have her convicted — that by simply having the songs on the file-sharing network, copyright infringement was implied and she was therefore automatically guilty.

Disturbingly, Davis (who was the judge on the original trial) had bought into this argument, and had issued an instruction to the jury (Jury Instruction 15) that they could find her guilty under those conditions. However, he called both parties back to his courtroom last month of his own accord, and said he may have committed a “manifest error of the law.” He then ruled that the instruction given to the jury was erroneous and “that error substantially prejudiced Thomas’ rights.” Hence, a mistrial.

Davis’ decision isn’t going to stop these types of cases, but it at least is going to force the RIAA to actually prove someone guilty rather than just threatening them or sweet-talking the courts into being on their side. Thomas is still going to have to go through another trial, but the RIAA will be required to demonstrate that she actually distributed the songs, rather than just making them available. Which is how it should be, because up to this point it’s almost as if Thomas (and others) had been convicted simply for loading a gun but not shooting anyone with it. The RIAA’s tactics severely violate the “innocent until proven guilty” statute that is the basis of our criminal justice system (or is supposed to be…horror stories from air travelers especially make you wonder what country this is), and they seem to think that’s perfectly fine. Actual quote from RIAA lawyer:

“Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners’ rights online – and would solely benefit those who seek to freeload off plaintiff’s investment.”

So, the RIAA shouldn’t have to actually prove someone’s guilty because…that would be too hard? Yeah, better that the courts just take the word of a special interest group. That always works out great. Apparently they believe they’re exempt from the law when gathering their “evidence” for these trials too.