My cousin has a degree in social work and, he is a hippie and certainly doesn't follow all the laws that he disagrees with, such as legality of the widespread dumping of perfectly edible food to keep the prices high.
First, that's not a law he has to worry about following. Second, your issue with dumping food has nothing to do with keeping prices high, it has to do with people who get the slightest bit ill from something that, WHILE EDIBLE, is said to require disposal, and then they turn around and sue the store owner.
It's happened in the past (divers getting sick and suing the owners).
Then we get to see Dateline stories about "perfectly edible" meat getting relabeled and sold, something that, according to your view, would be keeping prices LOWER, and everyone is up in arms over that store/company NOT THROWING AWAY "perfectly edible food".
There is no winning when you determine the rules as you go along, and people have problems with defining those rules as you go along. It's why we have elections every so often.
Oh yeah, and those elections also help change the people in charge of the screwball plea bargaining system you have in place - in that STATE. Why you're confusing that with a FEDERAL plea bargan, I have no idea, other than your emotions are running high.
There is no gauging "how well" an appeal will work. It either will, or won't. If you feel as strongly about it as you're appearing to be, it'd be worth it to you. Why are you even hesitating a second on whether or not it'd be smart to appeal? That hesitation is what GETS you the screwball system you're talking about - someone is indecisive, and a decision has to be made. Compromise comes into play, and you don't like the particular compromise in this situation.
It certainly appears that Chad's instincts are leading in the right direction. There's something that seems to be missing.