An appeal is based exclusively on items of LAW (a trial and verdict is based on items of FACT, within the confines of the law).
So an appeal would have to be based on things like evidence let in, kept out, judgements made -- basically an appeal that wins means the original trial judge screwed up -- royally, since the error has to be aggregious and not within the very broad purvue of the judge's judgement (sorry for the redundancy but it points out what the actual judge does).
Since it is judges who do the appeals, they are loathe to nail one of their own (judges are the most notoriaous clique in the Universe).
Now you know why many are saying Martha ain't gonna win on appeal -- if anything, the judge bent over backwards to ensure quesionable calls went in HER favor. Some are saying she had bad representation, but that is probably not an appealable issues or everyone who ever lost would appeal on the same basis.
She's toast.
I have no feelings for Stewart one way or the other, but as Cboldt pointed out, there is the SEC civil suit to deal with, plus stockholder lawsuits, some already on file, and many more sure to be coming (now that her stock value is crashing) which she will have to contend with, with much less money than she used to have.
I don't know much about the law but I know a little bit about marketing, and given that Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia's only real product - or real producer - is now a convicted felon - MSLO is certainly toast, even if Stewart isn't.