Some of the comments here surprise me. Why should sentiment matter at all? Defendants are presumed innocent. Except under pretty specific circumstances they do not have to prove their innocence, just cause enough doubt to be construed as reasonable.
Some people are able to vote not guilty for a defendant they despise, because that's what you're supposed to do as a juror if the facts dictate. If you're not able to do that, you have no business being on any jury, whether the defendant is a bank or a pauper. And even if you lie during voir dire (which is a crime), with a presumption of innocence all you'll achieve is a hung jury.
It wasn't a criminal case, so there was no presumption of innocense. The jury found that preponderance of evidence was in favor of the defendant. In theory, sentiment shouldn't matter, but in practice it might, which suggests that perhaps the case was not actually quite as clear-cut as the article implies...
As the other reply says, it's a civil case. Preponderance of Evidence applies, which is a much, much lower bar. Think, millions of dollars awarded over coffee that was served too hot.
And, civil or criminal, if you think that sentiment doesn't come into play, then you probably think justice is blind, politicians don't lie they just over promise, and that the markets are rational. What a wonderfully, blissfully ignorant state to exist in.
Some people are able to vote not guilty for a defendant they despise, because that's what you're supposed to do as a juror if the facts dictate. If you're not able to do that, you have no business being on any jury, whether the defendant is a bank or a pauper. And even if you lie during voir dire (which is a crime), with a presumption of innocence all you'll achieve is a hung jury.