My understanding is that prosecutors need concrete evidence to secure a conviction. They have to demonstrate that the accused individual was indeed present at the scene of the crime. I'm guessing that will be extremely difficult to obtain a guilty verdict with circumstantial evidence like that. I would also imagine that many defense attorneys are willing to work pro bono for this case.

Eyyyy, suddenly it's a crime to be thirsty in NYC? I'm commuting ovah here!

Yeah, I was cautiously skeptical from the beginning but there's way too many pieces including his statements during arrest. I'd be shocked if it somehow wasn't him at this point.

Strange for him to lie about the money of all things. Almost makes me wonder if that particular part actually was planted.