All of the poker players, except Bob Chimento, Scott Richards, Michael Williamson, Jeremy Brestel, and John Taylor Willis agreed to a plea bargain and paid fines of no more than $300.
In presenting his clients' defense, Phillips brought in two expert witnesses: Mike Sexton, the commentator for the World Poker Tour, and Professor Robert Hannum.
[4] The two expert witnesses were intended to demonstrate that poker was a game of skill and thus fulfilled the requirements of the Dominant Factor Test.
[7] As gambling generally involves three elements: prize, consideration, and chance,[citation needed] the defense introduced a great deal of testimony to the effect that poker is a game of skill.
"[8] The judge, however, found the defendants guilty because the defense failed to show that South Carolina's legislative or judicial system accepted the Dominant Factor Test as normative in the state.
After hearing oral arguments and taking consideration of written briefs, Judge Dennis found unequivocally in favor of the Defendant's position that Texas' Hold'em was a game of skill and not chance, as legally defined by the "Predominance Test," and overturned their convictions and fines.
Furthermore, Judge Dennis found not only that the defendant's conduct did not violate the law as it was written, holding that Texas Hold'em poker was a game of skill and not chance, but also that sections of SC 16-19-40 were unconstitutionally vague and therefore void.
In his 2009 appeal brief to the South Carolina Supreme Court, McMaster contradicted his office's formal opinion in 2004 stating that the Dominant Theory Test was not the proper legal standard and declared that "that 'chance' need not be determined with respect to a particular game for purpose of the gambling statute" and "that the Legislature sought to ban all 'gaming' for stakes at designated locations."
During oral arguments, Senior Assistant Attorney General Havird "Sonny" Jones contradicted his office's own written brief in the case and said "It is our position that this statute does not encompass the Friday night poker game or the penny ante bridge game," In the State's official written appeal brief submitted to the Court the Attorney General's Office wrote: "One obvious reason that 'chance' need not be determined with respect to a particular reason game for purpose of the gambling statute is that the Legislature sought to ban all 'gaming' for stakes at designated locations,"[13] Chief Justice Jean H. Toal commented on the obvious contradiction by stating: "I am surprised that you made that concession."
However, the court declined to adopt the Dominant Factor Test, stating only that "[w]hether an activity is gaming/gambling is not dependent upon the relative roles of chance and skill, but whether there is money or something of value wagered on the game's outcome."
Justice Kaye Gorenflo Hearn dissented in a separate opinion, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally void for vagueness.