I disagree. While I don't think what he did was smart at all, and if there's any truth to the murder for hire charges (which weren't tried in this court) I think he deserves to rot in prison, if there were any errors of law that prejudiced his defense then he is likely entitled to a new trial.

While I'm not an attorney, I personally think refusing to allow him to exclude the evidence the FBI obtained by illegally hacking the servers because he would not admit that he owned the servers (which would effectively be providing testimony against himself, protected by the 5th Amendement) was probably an error of law and it did prejudice his defense. I haven't read the defense's motion for a new trial but I wouldn't be surprised if it includes something similar to that (but reworded in legalese and probably citing other court cases that agree with that conclusion).