working mothers." The notion that she wanted Wiltsey out of her life intensely enough to kill him was not only speculative but contradicted the considerable evidence adduced that she was, if imperfectly, a caring and attentive mother who wanted the best for her son. In addition, Albin pointed to state precedent that the prosecution cannot use the fact of a defendant's poverty as proof of a motive for robbery; he believed the same logic applied here: "The 'burdens' that the State says motivated Lodzinski to kill are the same financial and social challenges facing many single working parents—the struggle to stay in a job, to find daycare, and to maintain a relationship." Petition for rehearing Shortly after the decision, Lodzinksi's lawyers asked the court to invoke a rarely-used rule allowing them to appoint a substitute justice and rehear the case. They argued that the deadlocked Court had violated her due process rights by allowing her conviction to stand under an improper standard of review, and that she was thus entitled to a review by a full Court. Since Rabner had recused himself from anything to do with her case, the chief judge of the Appellate Division, Jose Fuentes, was designated to sit on the Court to hear the motion and the rehearing if necessary. Again the Court spoke through a per curiam opinion. "Defendant has brought to this Court's attention a failing in its prior handling of this matter, which requires correction. She rightfully claims that the unique procedural posture of this Court's decision left her appeal unconsidered under the proper legal standard, which, left uncorrected, works a violation of her due process rights", it read. "Defendant must be provided her right to be heard on appeal by an appellate body using the correct standard of review." The justices elaborated on their decision in concurring and dissenting opinions, as they had before. Albin wrote for the same two justices, now a majority as Fuentes had joined them. He primarily responded to arguments made by the same dissenting justices: They had relied on incorrect precedents to argue the rehearing was unnecessary, precedents in which an evenly divided Supreme Court had let an appellate court ruling stand but, while disagreeing as to its correctness, agreed that it was constitutional. Only three of them had upheld the conviction while applying the correct standard, allowing the unconstitutional appellate decision to stand, and since all