I like to refer to this as lawyers "pretending to fail"; See, they are being told by their superiors to press a position officially, but to cripple it technical

I like to refer to this as lawyers "pretending to fail"; See, they are being told by their superiors to press a position officially, but to cripple it technically so that it never survives appeal. This allows eventual remedy for the accused, in the form of appeal, while allowing the State actors to promote their high conviction rates for cyber criminals during/post-trial. The state's main interest in the publicity of the case is to send a message to the public that cyber crime is taken very seriously, with the aim of deterring future activities of a similar nature by copycats. Weev's case being vacated should garner far less attention than the arrest and trial. Everyone but the accused himself benefits from the case, regardless of outcome. As the case is vacated, Weev could still be jailed, dependant on whether or not his legal representation files a motion in the lower court to release him; another classic case of "pretending to fail".