Isn’t this “new evidence” the same that he objected to during trial?

It’s clear that they look very bad in all of this and do need to get out from under it as soon as possible. I guess the question they’re debating is how to do without looking worse.

I’m not saying the prosecutor should get up and just say the charges should be dropped — he can’t even do that now, because she’s been convicted. But can’t he get up and say that new evidence has come to light (similar to DNA cases?) that would have caused him to reconsider prosecuting the case at all, can’t he?

It seems to me that if he was as misled as the jury with regard to whether the links were actively clicked or not, it’s not going to make the jury angry if an explanation of the ‘new evidence’ were given.

The easier way out would be for the defense to make a “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict” to which the prosecutors don’t object.

Bottom line is the jury found her guilty and to suddenly abandon their position without so much as an explanation from the prosecutors would really piss me off.