what Pennsylvania law required. The oft-quoted exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty comes to mind: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.” United States v. Pacheco, 225 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass). In Pursell’s case, the jury was the master of the meaning of torture. In permitting the jury such wide-ranging discretion, the trial judge abdicated his role: he failed to tell the jury what the law is. This is clearly a violation of Pennsylvania law. Crawley, 526 A.2d at 346-47 (<HOLDING>). Under the unique facts of the present case,
holding that the decision to allow attorney fees rests with the trial judge and that decision may only be reversed for an abuse of discretion recognizing that the privilege of being a heard amicus rests solely within the discretion of the court holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial where the jury had taken a dictionary that had not been admitted into evidence into the jury room and had improperly referred to and relied on the dictionarys definition of legal cause that was at variance with the definition of proximate cause holding that under pennsylvania law the responsibility for providing a legal definition of torture to be applied by the jury rests solely with the trial judge holding that the trial judge rather than the jury makes the determination of whether the defendant violated the implied consent law