Before the case went to court, there was a pre-trial hearing regarding points of law. Two points raised were; "Did the United States need to prove intent to violate the Gold Reserve Act to gain a warrant for seizure?", and "did the United States need to prove their case
beyond reasonable doubt?". On both points, the judge ruled that intent was irrelevant in terms of getting a warrant, and because this was a civil case and not a criminal one, the government only needed to show a
preponderance of evidence. The rooster was then held in a federal bank vault until the case was heard as the judge refused to grant bail to it. However they argued because it was being used as an advertisement, it was actually a commercial instrument and made claims that, because it was more than 90 percent gold, it did not count as legally exempt "fabricated gold". Graves had art experts from New York and Denver testify to the artistic merits of the statue, with one saying that the rooster was "exquisite". The government argued that the rooster risked American economic security, citing the initial refusal of the mint to melt down the gold and Graves' evasive tactics in getting the authorization. They argued that if 1 in 180 Americans made similar gold objects, the United States would lose 25 percent of its gold reserves. Laxalt compared the case to a modern-day
David and Goliath citing the government as Goliath making decisions without knowing what Nevadans experienced. He also stated that if the jury found against the statue, the rooster would have been melted down and placed in
Fort Knox. The judge directed the jury to consider whether the creation of the statue was a customary artistic use for gold. The jury found in favor of the rooster and its owner Graves. The judge summarized the jury's decision as the rooster having been made in good faith as a piece of art, rather than any attempt to hoard the gold. In response, the government petitioned the judge for a
judgment notwithstanding verdict to overrule the jury's decision. The government lawyers also moved for a
retrial on the grounds of misdirection of the jury and failure to allow witnesses, arguing that the ruling could result in people making 200 ounce
golden steers. The judge denied both petitions, on the grounds that the regulations under
Title 31 were referring to gold in general and that a large statue made of gold would negate the assumption of good faith that was presumed by the jury in this case. The government also argued that the court ruling was against the
legislative intent of the Gold Reserve Act. The court replied that it was up to
Congress to make their intent clear and that the enacted text was too vague to specifically target the statue just because it was made of gold. == Aftermath ==