Quote:
Originally Posted by mrscoach
Yeah, right. It sounds like they were trying to prove what they claimed they didn't have to prove in the first place, that he KNEW he was doing something illegal, and were grasping at straws by having the witness claim this. There was no proof Crippen placed anything in the console, much less a pirated game.
|
The fact that the witness did not previously report the test is certainly grounds for resonable doubt. Without being in the courtroom it is hard to be sure, but my guess is that the witness was actually telling the truth about Crippen testing with a pirated game. This is because neither he nor the defendant knew the case would revolve on this act (so Crippen tested, and Rosario did not report it at the time). The case was dropped because the prosecution screwed up by not telling the defense about the new testimony last Sunday. Also, they probably decided that dropping the case on a "technicality" was better than loosing with the jury.