There was exultation among the followers of Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez yesterday following the reversal on appeal of his conviction on six federal counts of extortion and racketeering. Hold the exultation. Though it's natural and understandable, celebration is premature -- and also misdirected.

This was no exoneration of Raul Martinez, however he and his backers might present it as such. Rather, it was a condemnation of the process -- not the evidence -- by which he was convicted. It was tainted process, not tainted evidence, that merits a new trial.

Had it found the evidence to be tainted, the three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals might well have reversed the convictions. That, and only that, would qualify as "exoneration." Instead, it remanded the case for retrial
because, the panel said, U.S. District Judge James Kehoe committed two procedural transgressions.

First, the ruling said that Judge Kehoe allowed "an atmosphere of coercion" at the trial. That atmosphere "prevailed during the jury's deliberations and the district court's investigation" of jury conduct that the appellate court, to its credit, found to be improper.

One juror impermissibly used a dictionary to look up the word "deliberate." One or more jurors brought into the jury room copies of The Herald containing stories about the previous day's trial proceedings. One juror, who favored acquittal, was coerced by insults and other attacks into swallowing her real opinion and voting to convict Mr. Martinez.

Second, the ruling said that Judge Kehoe erred in his jury instructions. He didn't tell jurors that they must find a specific quid pro quo in order to find criminal conduct in Mr. Martinez's acceptance of favors from Hialeah developers.

The opinion cites several instances in each of which Mr. Martinez made tens of thousands of dollars on favorable deals struck with developers seeking favors from Hialeah. A fair- minded jury might, or might not, conclude from that evidence that the favor was a quid pro quo -- "something for something," a bribe. But Judge Kehoe's instructions lacked that requirement.

South Florida's new U.S. attorney, Kendall Coffey, now must decide what to do next. "At this point," he said last night, "we intend either to explore appellate remedies or to proceed to trial. A final determination will be made after a studied review of the order."

Mr. Coffey should either ask the entire 11th Circuit Court to reconsider the panel's ruling en banc, or he should proceed forthwith to retry the case. Retrials are always iffy; witnesses move or die or become forgetful -- obstacles abound. But both the gravity of the charges, and the evidence behind them, are too great to let this case be dismissed.