Considering the people just tossed the first judge off the bench who really thinks the next judge is going to really look at this appeal request seriously?

Please.. the lynch mob will descend on them next if they dare.

It's a long shot, but appeal court judges aren't weighing the evidence per se. They are considering the issues raised about the conduct of the first trial. Since the judge was thrown out of office, it would come as no surprise that there might be issues about how he conducted the trial. It seems to me that a lot of the appeal relates to the judge bending to public pressure in evidence rulings. I.e. he was too tough on the defendant. Defendants have a right to present evidence.

Then in this argument some novel but on point issues seem to be raised. This makes sense to me. The combination of charges of which Turner was convicted don't make sense. I think the court could throw out one or more of the counts, or cause a retrial on them. It never came out publicly that Turner was fully clothed while all this violent thrusting was going on. While exposing oneself doesn't need to have already happen in order to be attempting rape, it seems like his end goal was to remain clothed. That's inconsistent with the idea of having something else in mind. Basically, he did everything he intended. They've already got him on the other issue about the fingers being a foreign object.

@ Good Points - I don't agree with you but either way he still belongs on the sex offender registry. Which is his main complaint. This kid's profile is disturbing. Clearly he feels no remorse for his crime or he'd be apologizing, begging forgiveness from the victim and accepting responsibility for what he did. Rather, he's upset that he's having to face consequences. Typical of an entitled kid...

Reversal for insufficient evidence is rare but such a reversal would not result in a new trial. A second trial in a criminal case generally is barred by constitional provisions against double jeopardy. A defendant who appeals a conviction based on procedureal errors is deemed to be asking for a new trial and waives the right against double jeopardy. Turner's appellate lawyer figured out (just in time) that his client would likely not benefit from a new trial which could well end with a new guilty verdict and a new sentencing hearing.