In this case, the defendant was indicted, without his knowledge, on a charge of 'smoking without permission and discarding a cigarette butt' at a particular location. Yet the only evidence presented in the investigation was a single photograph the victim sent, in Vietnamese, a month later, and footage of the defendant holding cigarettes in an elevator. There was no on-site CCTV and no direct witness, and the statements of the victim and the victim's family did not match. The key issues were that the defendant regularly resided in the space in question and that, even if DNA had been confirmed, it could not be concluded that the butt had been discarded on the day of the alleged offense.

Based on the fact that the defendant routinely used the location in question, I emphasized that the mere fact of smoking could not be direct evidence of the offense. In particular, the CCTV showed the defendant in a way that contradicted the key statement that he 'was holding two packs of cigarettes,' and the victim's report was based on a photograph passed along belatedly, a month later. The Police accepted this without meaningful verification, and the Prosecution pushed ahead with the indictment relying solely on inconsistent statements. I rebutted every one of these points, and the court ultimately acquitted the defendant, holding that 'reasonable doubt has not been excluded.' The risk of wrongful accusation can begin with a single word or a single photograph.