The authors first state that nothing contained in the reply to their critique of the study alters their view that the study presents an incomplete and distorted picture of the death penalty system in the United States. None of the arguments in the reply changes the fact that most reversals in capital cases simply negate, often temporarily, the death sentence of an offender who remains convicted of murder. Liebman and his colleagues claim that the 68-percent appellate reversal rate found in their study is a "valid measure of the risk that our existing capital system mistakenly executes the wrong people." This claim is illogical since the 68 of 100 capital defendants who win their appeals no longer face the risk of execution. Further, their "wrongful execution" claim is misleading, since Liebman and his colleagues provide no evidence to support the inference that innocent people are being executed; their study focused only on appellate reversal rates. Appellate reversals reflect procedural trial error and are unrelated to innocence. Data show that most appellate reversals leave undisturbed the guilt of the offender. Although Liebman and his colleagues do not disprove the finding that most appellate reversals affect only the sentence and not the conviction, they criticize the methodology used to arrive at this conclusion. An assessment of this criticism reveals that Liebman and his colleagues have ignored the distinction between conviction and sentence reversals. Although reforms of the capital appeals system are in order, they must be based on a complete and accurate appraisal of the capital adjudication process. 5 footnotes