Not at all. What is true is that you THINK that if he was really guilty the prosecutors would never have cut a deal with him. That's what's not true. This case was never in danger of being overturned on appeal because the babies weren't human beings but medical waste. In fact, if there was any scintilla of truth to an appellate judge vacating the sentence, Gosnell would never have cut a deal at all. This is because you don't understand legal procedure. The trier of FACT, the jury, found as a FACT that these were babies. No appellate judge could change that fact. Appeals are brought on legal procedure not facts. Any appellate court would have to accept the trier of fact's conclusion that these were babies. There was always a chance that Gosnell could appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. His attorney never put on a defense. But no appellate court could accept an argument that the jury got the facts wrong.
As to why the parties would cut a deal to exchange appellate rights for life instead of death, that's simple. Life on death row is much different than life in general population. Without knowing the details of the deal, and you don't know either, it is safe to assume that Gosnell got a cushy job in the prison hospital where he'll be allowed to take a shower more often than once a month for starters. He'll have prison yard privileges, be able to watch TV, get paid for what he does and be able to buy candy bars from the prison store. What the prosecutors get is saving the state a whole bunch of money not having to prepare oppositions to appeals. All the appeals, not just the one he's entitled to by virtue of getting a death sentence. Without knowing the details of this individual deal, Gosnell gave up every appellate right he had not just the appeals resulting from the death sentence.
I realize that it is probably utterly worthless to waste time trying to educate you, but I at least had to try.
