I don't think #4 is correct; that wasn't a trial, but a review of the appellate decision. The timeline as I read it is this: 1. He is tried (in district court,

I don't think #4 is correct; that wasn't a trial, but a review of the appellate decision. The timeline as I read it is this: 1. He is tried (in district court, with a jury) for insider trading, and convicted. 2. He appeals to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. A 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit holds that the exclusion of a witness prejudiced his trial, and sets aside his conviction, ordering a new trial. 4. The prosecution appeals that holding to the en banc 10th Circuit. 5. The full 9-judge 10th Circuit re-hears the appeal, and sets aside the panel's decision (by a narrow 5-4 vote), reinstating the original conviction. 6. He petitions the Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn the en banc 10th Circuit's decision, arguing that the panel's decision overturning the conviction had been correct. 7. The Supreme Court declines to hear the case, which ends the series of appeals and leaves the original conviction in place.