|
Actually, no it's not. That's why we have an appellate court. Lack of remorse is one thing, declaring innocence is a different thing all together. Certainly, saying you are innocent might make a parole board less likely to give you parole, but it isn't grounds for denial of parole per se. Parole boards have a lot of latitude though.
Apple's appeal is based on the 2007 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc vs. PSKS, Inc Supreme Court ruling that vertical price restraints is _not_ illegal per se. That's the ruling that Judge Cote either ignored or dismissed with a wave of her hand.
The appeal itself is rather interesting. On one hand, pointing out that Judge Cote gives the appearance of prejudicial conduct might make the panel take a closer look at the actions and fact of the matter rather than simply pay due deference to the trial judge, on the other hand, it also may not play well with other judges who don't like seeing a colleague criticized. Apple's lead appeal lawyer is a very experienced and successful appeals lawyer, so one would think that he knows what he's doing.
|