Another interesting aspect of American justice (and forgive me if it sounds naive): When you're on trial, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. But if you make an appeal, you're guilty until proven innocent. And proving innocence isn't simply a matter of showing that the judge and/or prosecutor made reversable errors, or that new evidence became available that wasn't at the trial. It's also largely a matter of the whim(s) of the judge(s) hearing the appeal.

Unfortunate case: a friend was convicted of insider trading and sentenced to six years. A three-judge panel voted 2-1 to order a new trial. So the government came back with a nine-judge panel to review the three judges' decision. My friend was defended by Maureen Mahoney, who is considered the top appeals lawyer in the US. The panel voted 5-4 to reinstate his conviction.

The Supreme Court, exercising its greatest power (IMO) simply declined to hear his case--their prerogative. He went to prison. His law team found that the sentencing judge (who was a bigot, and who ultimately resigned from the bar in disgrace) had made an error in calculating the penalty for my friend. So an appeals judge heard his case and resentenced him. Surprise, surprise: the judge was one of the five who voted to reinstate his conviction. She peeled all of two months off his sentence. "Conflict of interest"? Not according to her. And, my friend's law team told him if he further appeals the sentence, it can be lengthened.

"Justice"?