In early April 2020, Mr. Lindberg’s Legal team filed a motion for a judgement of acquittal or a new trial based on insufficient evidence and a failure to identify an “official act” in his previous trial. The government’s theory on what constituted an official act was pressed upon the jury; the jury was not given the opportunity to determine this themselves. The instruction on an “official act” deprived Mr. Lindberg of his right to have a jury determine this critical element of the charged offenses. Moreover, Mr. Lindberg was denied basic due process provided to him by the Constitution of the United States, namely that he be deemed innocent until proven guilty. The court’s instruction did not even require the jury to find all the necessary facts to find an “official act.” Additionally, the court’s instruction on “official act” relieved the jury of its’ obligation to apply the law to pertinent facts. Without the full facts, the jury was not able to discern “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Mr. Lindberg committed an “official act.” The full document below illustrates this explicitly. Several Supreme Court cases are used in the memorandum below to illustrate the deficiencies exhibited during the trial, especially in regards to the definition, scope, and legal application of an “official act.”