There may be grounds to appeal, but I don't think I see reversible error.
I believe the term is "reasonable" not rational. Frankly I don't believe that any reasonable jury could determine guilt in this case. I do not believe that the jury was reasonable or rational. And on top of that the judge has "discretion" to overrule the jury. He may be reversed on appeal, but he need only determine in his own mind that the evidence did not support the verdict. And it didn't.
Honestly jude, is this the kind of prosecution that you like to see? There was no underlying crime so techically any misstatement or false statement was not material. If there were an underlying crime involved, then Richard Armitage should have been the man on trial. He was never charged with any crime.
This prosecution and conviction scares the heck out of me. It is the moral equivalent of the Duke LaCross prosecution. now don't tell me that you think that Nifong is a saint.