"The judge didn't explain the law well enough to the jury to properly evaluate the evidence."
He says, on appeal, the best argument any defendant has is that there was a flaw in the jury instructions. Ciolino says Nagin claims that the city would have awarded the contracts in question regardless of whether or not he received any kind of payment from the contractors.
"As a result, there was no, what's known as, quid pro quo, no giving of something of value in exchange for the contracts. Mr. Nagin argues the contracts would have been awarded anyway."
He says Nagin's appeal only covers nine of his 20 convictions. Ciolino says, although Nagin is taking his best shot, it's difficult in any criminal case to prevail on appeal.
"Generally, deference is given to the trial judge on most matters. Although, with regard to jury instructions, those do get a fresh new look on appeal unlike most other errors."