Let me just stick my oar in here, because quite often there at Least 2 sides to every opinion, event, issue, etc.
I do not know Celia, nor her case[s].  I'm not from Nome.  But I have dealt with Judge Esch more than once, and Celia may have a valid point.  Judge Esch, for example, threw out a valid appeal by one of the "Fairbanks 4" [who later were able to establish their innocence and regain their freedom].  The appeal was based on documented improper and prejudicial conduct by the jurors deciding the conviction of Roberts - as I said the grounds were valid, the conduct documented.  Esch dismissed the appeal on the grounds [his words quoted in DNM] that "the Public deserves to have 'closure' in this matter."  A Public 'right' to closure does not exist, to my knowledge, in US jurisprudence.  That a young man should continue to serve time on an improperly decided conviction, simply because the Public [or Judge Esch] was tired of hearing about it, is abhorrent to our idea of Justice.