"Because of the negative connotations evoked by these terms, there is a significant danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury," the motion states. "Hackers are commonly portrayed as dangerous criminals who are involved in malicious conduct such as credit card fraud, stealing, intentional disruption of legitimate activities and causing economic damages."More to the point, they might think he had a clue about computers or something.
"It doesn't constitute what we would label as advanced hacking," Rob Graham, CEO of consultancy firm Errata Security, said of the acts alleged in the indictment. "It's something that a teen can figure out, rather than an advanced professional."Well, that's about right.
Seems like the lawyers are in essence asking the judge to dismiss based on the client's advanced level of dumbness. Come to think of it, that seems about right, too. Res ipsa loquitur.
If the defendant's a twit, you must acquit.