"There weren't any signs saying, 'Don't go in.'

[moxnix]

Originally posted here by Relyt
Doggon’ better ante-up my two bits as well.

True story that runs somewhat parallel to this scenario and I would imagine the ex-student will suffer the same fate.
I knew a young man who was out running around one night and he wanted some booty so he headed over to a girlfriend’s house. He tried the door and found it unlocked so he entered. He’s still in jail.

cheers

I am going to one up you.....I knew a man who thought his wife was cheating on him, so when he was suppose to be on a buisness trip he snuck back in his own house one night. He is still dead. (and she got away with it....even though I think she planned it that way)

Sorry, kind of off topic......but the moral being that openning a closed or locked door can be hazardous to your health.

[|3lack|ce]

His attorney is using a classical defense used in computer-related cases. The most difficult thing to prove on the prosecution's part is 'criminal intent.' Unfortunately for us, and fortunately for the skiddies out there, that 'criminal intent' must be present to constitute the crime.

I mean - the guy could've been a raving idiot, out trying to connect his box to the 'internet' and blundered blindly into the 'open network' and downloade a bunch of junk. Highly unlikely yes, but then again you and I aren't on the jury, and you can bet your bottom dollar there won't be any IT professionals on it either. I find it quite amazing that in this age of technology there's so many computer illiterate people out there. I find it still more amazing that a jury in its right mind would honestly believe someone to be that moronic, but odds are if the jury is picked correctly, they will.

Also, see "Specific factors that define a crime, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to obtain conviction. Elements that must be proven are (1) that a crime actually occurred (actus reus), (2) that the accused intended the crime to happen (mens rea), (3) a timely relationship between the first two factors."

1 ) Ok, so the guy has to commit a crime - he did. He stole a bunch of stuff.
2 ) Intent - there's the rub. He either intended it, or he's a bloody idiot.
3 ) Timely relationship - He was in their system at the same time the crime was committed - a moot point to prove.

I'm quite curious how the prosecution will build it's case, considering the 'idiot defense' is in play.