Chapter 22 - THE APPEAL
Duncan appealed the financial fraud conviction.
Not the domestic battery conviction.
His lawyers argued the false asset statement could be interpreted as projected equitable value rather than present legal ownership.
The appellate court agreed one jury instruction was too broad.
The false-statement conviction was vacated for retrial.
The diverted-reimbursement fraud conviction remained.
Prosecutors later accepted a plea to a narrower false-record offense rather than retry.
Sentence reduced modestly.
Headline:
DUNCAN WINS APPEAL.
Dad called furious.
“He lied.”
“Yes.”
“Then why—”
“Because legal instructions have rules.”
He stopped.
He had learned this lesson through his own misdemeanor case.
“I hate that.”
“Me too.”
The domestic violence conviction remained.
Restitution remained on the supported financial count.
No exoneration.
Specific correction.
May you like
I wanted my child to grow up in a world where courts corrected mistakes even for people I feared.
That mattered more than satisfying headlines.
