postponed, as Lodzinski's attorney appealed the judge's earlier rulings on juror misconduct and insufficient evidence. The defense moved shortly afterwards for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), asking Nieves to set aside the conviction and enter an acquittal on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to have convicted; He denied it, and then in January 2017, he sentenced Lodzinski to 30 years in state prison without possibility of parole. Appeals Lodzinski was committed to the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women near Clinton, New Jersey's only women's prison, to begin serving her sentence. She appealed both the judge's refusal to grant a mistrial after the jury foreman's dismissal and his denial of JNOV, and argued that the 23-year delay in bringing the case had been unduly prejudicial. A three-judge panel of the state's Appellate Division ruled against her on all the issues in 2019. She appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, where an unusually complicated process ensued after it heard arguments late in 2020. After the court's Chief Justice, Stuart Rabner, recused himself from hearing the case, the remaining six justices agreed in May 2021 that the appeals court had applied a standard of review to the evidence that was too narrow, but deadlocked on whether the evidence itself was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Lodzinski petitioned for a rehearing on the grounds that her conviction should not be allowed to stand on unconstitutional grounds, and that October the Court reheard it, with the state's chief appellate judge designated to stand in for Rabner. His vote broke the deadlock, and the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and granted JNOV just before the end of the year. Appellate Division In April 2019, the Appellate Division of the state's Superior Court heard Lodzinski's appeal. Judges Carmen Messano, Douglas M. Fasciale and Lisa Rose were empaneled to decide it. Four months later, they unanimously upheld both trial court rulings, allowing the conviction to stand. The panel first considered the sufficiency of the evidence, under the standard that it must be evaluated in the light most favorable to the state, with inferences conceivably made by the jury from the evidence deemed rational if they were more likely to be true than not, even if reasonable doubt still existed, conceding that defense evidence "was substantial and in many ways directly rebutted the State's proofs." Since Lodzinski had not