Rig asked:

What would be the general public mind-set--especially in Alaska--if the Democrat ends up winning the election, and the Stevens is exhonorated (sic) on appeal?

The result of an appeal, even if in the defendant's favor, does not (except in very rare cases) exonerate (note spelling) the defendant. The point is to decide whether there were legal, procedural errors made in the trial. If the appeals court finds such errors, 99.44% of the time the result is to remand to the trial court for retrial. Only in extreme cases would the appeal court set aside the guilty verdict in favor of "not guilty". Nothing I've read about the Stevens trial suggests to me that there might be such extreme errors.

But, even supposing the appeals court goes so far as to set aside the "guilty" in favor of "not guilty", that does not exonerate Stevens.   Remember that "not guilty" doesn't mean "he didn't do it"; it means that the prosecution was unable to prove the essential elements that would lead to a legal finding of guilt.

In other words, "not guilty", despite popular usage, does not mean "innocent". A jury doesn't return a verdict of "innocent".   The criminal law doesn't deal with innocence; it deals with whether the essential elements are proven, so that the sanctions of law may be applied. The substitution of "not guilty" for "guilty" wouldn't mean that the defendant (Stevens in this instance) is pure and unsullied under the facts of the case. It's purely a legalistic conclusion, not a moral one. That's not "exoneration".

But despite all of the foregoing pedantic rant, I expect that many citizens of Alaska might be highly disgruntled. But it wouldn't change the result of the election.

Dave Oesterreich