I was reading the article RosieC posted about chances for appeal. Thanks for that. It says, essentially, where there was "a competent verdict," the state cannot appeal. According to the ruling, the state can only appeal if there was a "complete acquittal."
To me, the key words here are "competent verdict". If the judge did NOT make a competent verdict, there could be grounds for appeal.
I for one have questions about the judge's state of mind... Her logic was so convoluted as to be frightening. She also appeared not to be fluent with a document she ostensibly created over a period of weeks. Editing it on live tv and whatnot. I believe there may be some genuine cognitive issues at play with the judge (bias aside). It seems the state could appeal on these grounds.
Has anyone found statues pertaining to SA's definitions of and exclusions to "competent conviction"? I'm looking...
Forgive me for replying to myself!--But my buttons to edit and delete are missing at the moment, and I was quite wrong about this statement I made above, as other posters mentioned. So I just wanted to highlight my errors in this post, so as not to perpetuate my wishful thinking....
I still believe there are concerns re. the judge's state of mind and/or potential bias, but am not sure what if anything could be done about it.