- The Government argued that Weinstein was incorrect in his interpretation of IGBA and that the luck vs. skill argument is irrelevant to the application of the law.
- Though the court has yet to issue a ruling, poker proponents are optimistic that the decision of the lower court will be upheld.
The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Wednesday that could be instrumental in the future of online poker in the US.
The US Government appealed a ruling by Federal Judge Jack Weinsten after he set aside a jury’s guilty verdict in a case against Lawrence DiCristina, who was charged with violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA) for running an illegal poker game.
Based on the testimony of expert witnesses for both sides, Weinsten concluded that the IGBA did not apply to poker because the game is “predominated by skill.”
The Government argued that Weinstein was incorrect in his interpretation of the IGBA and that the luck vs. skill argument is irrelevant to the application of the law. The act of wagering on an uncertain outcome constitutes gambling under the law, Assistant US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Taryn Merkl contended.
However, according to reports, the panel of three judges thwarted the government’s attempts to disregard the evidence showing poker as a game of skill in favor for its own perception that poker is clearly gambling.
Though the court has yet to issue a ruling, poker proponents are optimistic that the decision of the lower court will be upheld.
