[brief] On February 16, 2024, the trial court granted [...]’s motion for a new trial based upon live testimony, newly discovered documents, and extensive briefing that verified that [...] had full authority to raise capital for the [...] project at issue here.  That reality was based upon the [...] Principal Owner’s Guaranty Agreement showing his thirty percent (30%) stake and the consistent assent and understanding from his partners that he was raising money for the project.  It was also due to the fact that his family’s company, which he ran, was the sole franchisee of World of Beer at the Hoboken location during the period he raised the capital based on two (2) franchise agreements executed at that time.  In its decision, the trial court gave significant weight to the fact that these agreements, which were proven to have been generated and in effect around the time of execution and thus not fabricated as alleged by the State, would likely convince a jury that [...] had that authority.  The State’s contention that [...] lacked authority to raise money for the project is plainly belied by the testimony and documentary evidence presented to the trial court.  The trial court had the opportunity to observe the live testimony of the witnesses presented at both trial and the two (2) hearings conducted following the filing of the defense’s post-verdict motions, as well as review the documents entered into evidence through those witnesses and question the witnesses herself.  At one point, [...] verified the dates of the newly discovered documents as having been generated contemporaneously with the period of their execution by opening the emails to which they were attached in open court.  (8T 43:1 to 54:25).  That alone warrants this Court affirming the ruling below granting [...] a new trial, as the State’s position hinges entirely upon its unfounded assertion in its brief that these documents were “obviously fraudulent” and “more than likely forged. ” (Sb3).  Yet, the State conceded that those documents were attached to emails contemporaneous with their execution, (8T 53:25 to 54:13), and not generated after [...]’s verdict, as it appears to also assert throughout its brief despite that notion being antithetical to the State’s concession.  This case involved complicated relationships and financial transactions in addition to a myriad of documents and testimony from over a dozen witnesses.  It is clear that the jury did not dedicate sufficient time to consider that complexity, returning a verdict in just over an hour.  The trial court, having presided over the case, recognized the complexity and performed a comprehensive analysis in granting the defense’s motion.  The State, on the other hand, purposefully oversimplified the case for the jury in a manner that prevented it from fully understanding what occurred in the development of the project.  Had it not been for [...]’s family’s desperate search for a needle in a haystack following a verdict that “shocked” and “dumbfounded” them, an innocent person would now be incarcerated.  Based upon what the trial court considered and found to be legitimate, the jury’s verdict would necessarily be different.  Accordingly, the trial court’s conclusion, based upon a complete understanding of what occurred, should not be disturbed.