> > his overturned conviction only for wrong jurisdiction

> What are you getting at?

> If an appeals court says “wrong jurisdiction”, that’s an “rm -rf” on the whole entire case. There’s nothing left to argue about.

I think your parent comment meant something like "the case wasn't overturned on the basis of deficiencies in the legal theory of the crime."

Generally this is a good thing to happen, because it's fairly quick and easy to argue you're in the wrong jurisdiction... and if that's the case, it doesn't matter what the legal theory was, since the court couldn't convict you anyway.

Perhaps selfishly, I'd rather get out of a trial in the motion to dismiss stage, rather than having to very-expensively argue the merits all the way to the end.

"jurisdiction" literally means "the power to say what the law is"

If the court had no jurisdiction, it is not possible for them to rule on "deficiencies in the legal theory of the crime" in that case.

If it’s in the wrong jurisdiction, the court doesn’t get to the point where they look at the legal theory.