Doesn't Spector need GROUNDS for appeal?

If so, what are they? Personally, I hope the guy rots, but as we have seen, Lawyers are often the biggest enemy of justice.

A day after the trial is kinda early to have that discussion, but yes… an appeal to a criminal conviction must be based on legal errors that were made at trial. You can’t introduce new evidence or re-argue the facts of the case.

I’m not familiar with the particulars of the Specter case, but typically appeals will argue that evidence was improperly excluded/included, that the judge’s instructions to the jury were improper, that some constitutional rights were violated, or that your defense counsel was inadequate.

You can also make an appeal based on misconduct (by a juror/attorney/judge/etc.), but that’s less common.

I opened the thread to respond, but since the OP’s slam at the entire legal profession makes it clear that he’s not interested in a genuine discussion, I won’t be participating.


And I refuse to respond to your fit of pique.

General Questions forum rules proscribe slams against professions. If the slam wasn’t in the OP, I’d just make a mod note and let the discussion continue. As it stands, the OP is unlikely to get many helpful answers. Therefore, I will close this thread and suggest that the OP start another one that states a factual question without editorializing about the legal profession. No warning issued.

General Questions Moderator