Her grounds for appeal in respect to the “guilty” verdicts -three “counts” of first-degree criminal sexual misconduct” for alleging having sex with her “victim” on three occasions and one “count” of “enticing a minor for immoral purposes” for responding to his hundreds of emails and text messages- is that the judge’s instructions to the jury “undercut her defense -that she was the victim of rape and the teen was her attacker.” (woodtv.com, quoted in grrealist.blogspot.com, 2015/08)
At issue -two key points- jury instructions that Tieber says didn’t instruct the jury of 11 women and one man to consider the defense that Simon was a victim of rape and the sentence that imposes lifetime monitoring on Simon. A sentence her attorneys say is cruel and unusual.(woodtv.com, August 3, 2015)
Her only chance, however remote, of having her convictions vacated on appeal and being acquitted of all charges in a new trial by a jury that believes her story and testimony is if she contests the lawsuit and all or most of its allegations and prevails in a civil trial.
If she pleads no contest to the lawsuit, thereby conceding that she was lying and that the young man didn’t force himself on her, her grounds for appeal will be obviated in respect to the judge’s instructions. There would be no reason to proceed with an appeal on this matter with the hope that her convictions would be negated and that she’d exonerated in a new trial, and no reason for a court to even hear her appeal on the judge’s instructions. The issue would be mute and impertinent, factually and legally.
And even if an appeals court ruled in her favor on lifetime electronic parole monitoring, agreeing with her lawyers that this penalty was “cruel and unusual,” her convictions would not be overturned and she would still be imprisoned for years if not over a decade and subjected to all the other extra/post-incarceration punishments, including registration for life as a uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal.