Now, Milner has begun the first of two stages in appealing against her conviction at the Supreme Court.
A application for leave to appeal hearing has been set down for the Supreme Court in Wellington tomorrow.
If leave to appeal is granted, a hearing date for a full hearing will then be allocated.
It's understood that her defence counsel Rupert Glover will argue tomorrow that Milner couldn't have put the poison in Mr Nisbet's food.
NZME. News Service believes that the lawyer will say there was never any evidence of Milner putting anything in his food.
Mr Glover will also claim that no tests were ever carried out on either Mr Nisbet's meal remnants that night or any food in the house.
Mr Glover has previously said that Milner is adamant of her innocence.
Milner argued in the Court of Appeal that the jury's verdict was unreasonable because the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was possible for her to have administered the drug Phenergan without her husband noticing its bitter taste.
The court found it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove exactly how the mother of two had administered the drug so Mr Nisbet did not know about it.
The mechanics of administering the drug was simply one factor for the jury to weigh up in the context of a strong circumstantial case, they ruled.
They added that other, circumstantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.
Purchases of Phenergan under fake names were linked to Milner, and her son Adam Kearns gave evidence that he had seen her crushing pills.
She had expressed a wish to kill Mr Nisbet and take advantage of his $250,000 life insurance policy.
And suicide notes given to the police by Milner contained errors and other features that matched samples of her writing.
