I wouldn't agree that it is necessarily hard -- I've done dozens of appeals -- but often with trials there is not a lot of meat left on the bone; most appeals I see are trying to make mountains out of molehills.
What will usually happen is that the defense team will find dozens of trial errors, but none of them will get over the bar of being serious enough that they would have swayed the jury, since the evidence presented was too conclusive. So, the appellate court will note that the trial judge could have done a better job, but then leave the conviction intact.
Most criminal convictions in the USA are only overturned on constitutional violations relating to searches and seizures, probably none of which apply here.
> but often with trials there is not a lot of meat left on the bone;
That's basically what I meant by it being "hard". Maybe "rare" would be a better term. The main thrust of the point is that the federal judiciary has been running criminal trials for a long time, and has worked out most of the kinks at this point. Most district courts are able to run a criminal trial without creating an error that creates an opportunity to overturn the conviction on appeal.
Agree. And federal courts are way better at this than state courts. Federals are more academic. State courts the judges are just running buck wild doing whatever the hell they feel and never looking in a law book in their lives.
Tech touches everything. So does law. Tech cos need lawyers. Lawyers need to understand and/or use technology. Or it's entertainment. Any reason is as good as the next.
Why wouldn't they? There are probably loads of people here who don't work in tech whatsoever. (e.g. myself: a holder of degrees in English and classical piano; a student and part-time shop assistant. Programming/tech/science related interests are only a hobby.)
Not a lawyer, never passed the bar. I just litigate on my own behalf against the government when they don't follow their own laws, and spend a decade here or there in jail where there is lots of legal work to read...
What will usually happen is that the defense team will find dozens of trial errors, but none of them will get over the bar of being serious enough that they would have swayed the jury, since the evidence presented was too conclusive. So, the appellate court will note that the trial judge could have done a better job, but then leave the conviction intact.
Most criminal convictions in the USA are only overturned on constitutional violations relating to searches and seizures, probably none of which apply here.