In the situation described and following the definition and common use cases of precedent, I would confirm that it is my opinion that the judge in question did in fact fail to follow precedent.
Precedent is described as a past event and/or action which is used as a guide when considering the course of action for a similar situation. Given the keyword "similar" in this definition, it can be argued that in order for precedent to apply to a situation, it is not necessary for the details of each situation to be identical.
Therefore, the defense attorney can argue the failure to follow precedent based solely on the similarly obscure nature of each law. Furthermore, if the defense attorney is able to procure evidence of past infractions of this law for which no charges were upheld, it would almost certainly result in the appeal being granted and the subsequent review of the law in question.
To learn more visit:
https://brainly.com/question/885855?referrer=searchResults