A few points about the Crystal Mason case, maybe no one cares but:
There was no jury. The trial was a bench trial. The judge was explicit that no knowledge of ineligibility was required. So the issue was never fully litigated and was not ruled upon. Court of Appeals said same -- knowledge not required. Court of Crim. Appeals said nah-- read the damn statute.
So now it's back in the Court of Appeals to consider the issue of her knowledge. But how that's going to work, I don't understand. What is the standard of review for judging sufficiency when there was a conviction but the issue was never litigated-- de novo? And yes she signed the written oath but that's not dispositive. If she claims she didn't read or understand it (which by the way she had been released from prison AND from a halfway house), that's a credibility issue, no? Which is a matter the original fact-finder gets to assess, not an appellate court from a cold record. It would seem to me that a new trial is the proper remedy, which I guess the CoA could still say. DA's office should really drop this shit though --filled out a provisional ballot that was never counted SMDH.