I'm fairly certain that this would be a clear application of Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment for at least the majority of charges; in short, this is true because whether or not the case had merit, the prosecution definitely screwed up the proceeding.
There may have been a case for CFAA violation (right or wrong), but the prosecutors improperly chose New Jersey as the venue of proceedings. This was a calculated move that had the effect of producing additional state charges, which then resulted in an increased Federal charge for CFAA + State Law violations. That sort of willful "venue shopping" cuts both ways, then; as soon as they try for additional charges, prosecutors now had to conclusively prove that the location of venue was material to the crime at hand, as well as the actions committed.
Since Weev &co were not in NJ at the time the act occurred, and neither were the machines they accessed, and there's no conclusive proof of NJ residents being harmed, then the venue of crime committed was incorrect and thus so were the additional charges hung on it. And that is the prosecutorial misstep which was overturned on this appeal, which is subject to jeopardy limitations.
When a conviction is vacated (as was the case here) it does not violate the double jeopardy clause to try the accused again for the charge for which he was convicted.
The case on point is United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896)* which rejects the English common law rule that holds the opposite. Frankfurter's dissent in Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957)+ is far easier to read and lays out the history well.
If they did, and he was convicted again, would his time served on the vacated conviction be discounted off any sentence? It would seem highly unjust if not.
There may have been a case for CFAA violation (right or wrong), but the prosecutors improperly chose New Jersey as the venue of proceedings. This was a calculated move that had the effect of producing additional state charges, which then resulted in an increased Federal charge for CFAA + State Law violations. That sort of willful "venue shopping" cuts both ways, then; as soon as they try for additional charges, prosecutors now had to conclusively prove that the location of venue was material to the crime at hand, as well as the actions committed.
Since Weev &co were not in NJ at the time the act occurred, and neither were the machines they accessed, and there's no conclusive proof of NJ residents being harmed, then the venue of crime committed was incorrect and thus so were the additional charges hung on it. And that is the prosecutorial misstep which was overturned on this appeal, which is subject to jeopardy limitations.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-double-jeop...