six justices hearing the case had agreed that the wrong standard of review had been used, any of them could vote on a motion to reconsider the case. Nor was the incorrect ruling the fault of Lodzinski's attorneys citing the wrong precedent in their brief to the Appellate Division; in that circumstance, Albin wrote, the appellate court has a "non-delegable obligation" to maintain constitutional safeguards. The dissenting justices wrote at length, finding it "astonishing" that Lodzinski had secured a rehearing when the only error they saw in her case had been adequately addressed in the earlier decision, as they had used the proper standard of review and still found the evidence sufficient. "[D]efendant's constitutional rights were fully protected in her appeal, just as they were at her trial", they argued. They insisted that as the only judges who had concurred in actually sustaining her conviction, at least one of them had to have been among the judges granted rehearing. Since none of them were, the order was against the Court's own rules. Albin had ended his dissent by suggesting the even split in the Court meant its decision might not be final. The dissenters considered that an invitation to petition for rehearing, and with an appellate judge temporarily designated in Rabner's place, "[d]efendant thus achieved a remedy that appears to be unprecedented: the addition of an Appellate Division judge, at the behest of an unsatisfied litigant, for a new hearing before a recomposed Court." Second decision vacating conviction The case was reargued before the Court in October 2021. The decision was handed down just before the end of the year. As with the rehearing, Judge Fuentes' vote proved decisive, providing a majority to reverse the appellate court and grant the JNOV on the grounds that the evidence was not sufficient for a reasonable jury to have convicted. Since the JNOV entered an acquittal verdict, Lodzinski's murder conviction was vacated and she cannot be retried for the crime, even if new evidence emerges in the future. Again writing what was now the majority opinion, Albin reiterated that while he could grant the jury crediting the state's witnesses on the blanket and Wiltsey's possible absence from the carnival over Lodzinski's, and Natarajan's conclusion of homicide, the state still had not proved Lodzinski's state of mind, essential if the conviction was for the most severe charge of murder, as opposed to the lesser