If the judge is overturning aquittals, then we have problems. And I would suggest we lock and load if the judge had done that and thrown her in prison. As it is, I only suggest that everyone lock and load because they threw her in jail before she was convicted. She hadn't yet had her trial, so she shouldn't have been in jail, period.

She was under indictment for murder, no? I don't know how Massachusetts handles murder suspects before trial, but in many states those accused of capital crimes don't get the benefit of bail. (Ditto for those who are flight risks, etc.) Of course, prosecutors perforn their own dog-and-pony show in front of the judge/magistrate, claiming that the accused is not only guilty of everything one could imagine, but also a smarmy type who would double-park during rush hour and probably has connections to the Illuminati, neo-Nazi hate groups, and the O.T.O. The logical extreme of what you propose is that, for a serial murderer, jail would just be a rest stop between killings. "He was caught in Idaho and indicted for murder, but they released him on bail. So he went over to Montana and killed someone there, but they had to release him, too." Surely there must be some reasonable middle ground.