I think both of these people would be better off if they privately agreed to split the prize money.  By the time all these lawsuits and appeals are finished, there will be no prize left to award, because the lawyers will have it all.

I think both of these people would be better off if they privately agreed to split the prize money.  By the time all these lawsuits and appeals are finished, there will be no prize left to award, because the lawyers will have it all.

I think both of these people would be better off if they privately agreed to split the prize money.  By the time all these lawsuits and appeals are finished, there will be no prize left to award, because the lawyers will have it all.

I think both of these people would be better off if they privately agreed to split the prize money.  By the time all these lawsuits and appeals are finished, there will be no prize left to award, because the lawyers will have it all.

I had a feeling that the judges decision would be overturned but it came as a surprise that the original judge overturned his own decision.He must have got a lot of flack from the public on his original decision.

I agree. It would probably have been overturned on appeal (which lower court judges do not want to happen) so the judge "modified" his/her decision. I am sure the finder will get a share...maybe 1/3 or as much as 1/2.

I think both of these people would be better off if they privately agreed to split the prize money.  By the time all these lawsuits and appeals are finished, there will be no prize left to award, because the lawyers will have it all.

I think both of these people would be better off if they privately agreed to split the prize money.  By the time all these lawsuits and appeals are finished, there will be no prize left to award, because the lawyers will have it all.

It would have been a bigger payday if the trash picker had kept
her mouth shut.  That's the big lesson of this case.  If you find a winner
be quiet, walk away, take it home and jump up and down and
scream there...and then wait a couple months to break the chain of
events and have memories and timelines fade. It may be hard
to contain yourself, but being sued out of your million
dollar ticket is a little harder, wouldn't you say?

An Arkansas judge on Thursday ordered a new trial to decide who can claim a $1 million scratch-off lottery ticket prize, a little more than three weeks after he ruled that a woman who said she bought the ticket but mistakenly discarded it was entitled to the money.

White County Circuit Judge Thomas Hughes ruled May 1 that Sharon Duncan should get the prize money, not two other women involved in the case. Hughes ordered the new trial in a one-paragraph ruling that did not elaborate on his reasoning.

"After reviewing the actions of counsel appearing in this case, the court file and the record, this court, as authorized by the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, orders a new trial to be held on all claims in this case," Hughes said in the order. A call to Hughes' office was not immediately returned.

Duncan said she purchased the "Diamond Dazzler" ticket at a convenience store in Beebe, about 35 miles northeast of Little Rock. She said the store's electronic scanner indicated she was not a winner, so she discarded the ticket. Sharon Jones, another customer at the store, subsequently picked up the ticket and claimed the winnings for herself.

Winston Collier, Jones' attorney, said he was confused about the judge's reason for ordering a new trial but pleased with the result. Collier said he had planned on requesting a new trial on Friday.

"We're fighting curiosity," Collier said about the ruling. "We're tempering it with our elation that our client has no longer lost a million dollars. We feel really good about our chances moving forward."

Duncan said she discarded the ticket after an electronic scanner told her it was not a winner. The state's Lottery Commission has defended the machine and says its equipment functions properly. The store's manager and owner sued Jones, claiming she illegally took the ticket from the bin. Duncan joined the lawsuit after the judge determined she may be the true owner of the ticket.

"Duncan said she discarded the ticket after an electronic scanner told her it was not a winner. The state's Lottery Commission has defended the machine and says its equipment functions properly."

If the machine was working properly, Duncan didn't have the winning ticket and maybe why the judge ordered a new trial. Unless Duncan bought the only ticket sold in that store, she can't prove the ticket Jones found was hers. Duncan should have know if the ticket was a winner by looking at the ticket. It's a simple game; match one of your 8 number with one of 20 game numbers and win the prize listed below the number.

It looks like after the store owner and manager sued Jones for taking the ticket from their trash, Duncan decided to claim the discarded ticket was hers.