[RDak]

Oh please guys, stop with the I don't understand the law and all that stuff. I've known for decades that appellate courts allow the prosecutor to retry cases like this that they have reversed, but I was going beyond that and making conclusions on the language used by the appellate court justifying their reversal.

The appellate court addressed numerous substantial weaknesses in the trial proceedings, and the judge's instructions to the jury, that made them conclude Fish did not get his fair day in court.

They, in essence, concluded that had the judge followed proper procedure, etc., the jury could very well have come to a different conclusion and, as a result, the appellate court reversed the conviction and sentence accordingly.

Had those errors not risen to the level of casting doubt on the "no reasonable doubt" verdict, (i.e., in the minds of the appellate judges), the appellate court would not have reversed the conviction and sentence.

They most definitely felt the outcome might have been for acquittal and that there was the definite possibility of reasonable doubt had the trial been conducted properly. That's why they reversed the conviction and sentence. That was their judgment.

There were many conclusions made by the appellate court indicating some of the lower court's interpretations and procedures didn't effect the fair decision making of the jury.

However, other errors by the lower court prevented the jurors from considering and knowing substantial facts, and law, that the appellate court concluded could have swayed them into decidinig there was reasonable doubt. Otherwise, as I stated, they would not have reversed the conviction and sentence.

Had these other errors been inconsequential, the appellate court would not have reversed the conviction or sentence.

The only way Fish can be convicted of murder now is for the prosecutor to open a new trial, present the required evidence, have the judge provide the proper legal instructions to the jury and let the jury decide if Fish is really a murderer.

Sure the prosecutor has another chance but, if you read the appellate court decision and come away thinking those appellate court judges felt Fish had no reasonable cause, then I question your reading and comprehension ability.

Let me put it another way, if I was the prosecutor I would not retry this case after reading the appellate court's opinion. The reason being the appellate court clearly felt the trial was unfair and prevented an honest outcome. That's why the conviction and sentence were reversed.

At least, that's what I would have done with cases assigned to me before I retired. An honest prosecutor, judge, or litigator, will read between the lines and realize there may have been a travesty of justice, especially so if an appellate court decision makes it so clear. (They felt Fish's due process rights were violated for pete's sake. That's usually tantamount to saying the outcome might very well have been different.)