We all have our opinions. Reasonable doubt is a very personal interpretation, and will ultimately depend on a judge's opinion, and then a jury's if it gets that far. I guarantee the jury will not be composed of people who read Apple blogs, and that is a much less Apple sympathetic crowd. Lots of casual observers think Apple is making way too much of this.
I don't believe the law says you have to hand found things over to the police. It says you must make a "reasonable" effort to find the owner. It will be a matter of of a jury's opinion if the finder made a reasonable effort. Chen? Publishing where thousands of Apple fans will read it will not guarantee Apple will be contacted? He could have quietly returned it to Apple and published nothing, yes, and that might be considered unethical to do it the way he did. You can't say he tried to hide the fact he had it, and he did ask Apple to confirm it was their phone. Publishing in the Lost and Found in a newspaper is certainly considered a reasonable effort.
There is plenty of reasonable doubt in my mind that the intention for either was to keep the left behind iPhone for themselves. Several people have drawn the car analogy, of driving and bring it back - that is often considered "joyriding" rather than "Grand theft auto." Clearly the intent can make a difference, or there would be no such thing as joyriding. There are specific laws that deal with autos, not so with phones. The finder did profit from the owner's misfortune, and it does look like he had a chance to contact him and did not - that is certainly what is alledged. He may see punishment. I doubt either he or Chen will be treated like someone who tried to sell it on eBay or a pawn shop by a jury. It is certainly doubtful to me that Chen intentionally broke it, but he did show the world he took it apart. He may well be held responsible for the damage to the prototype. I don't think Chen or the finder acted ethically, by any means.
Proving damage was done to Apple is next to impossible. Everyone realize Apple stock is higher now than the day Apple asked for it's phone back, April 19? And that some analysts have raised the projected value to $320 per share? The new iPhone will be a huge success as always.
I don't try to justify anything either of these guys did. I wouldn't have asked for money for it, and I wouldn't have paid for it. I just express doubt that jury will easily convict them of theft. I do doubt that any real damage was done to Apple at all, other than the protoype damage, which isn't all that valuable if millions of them will be sold in a couple of months. The damage is to their pride in their secrecy and surprises as a marketing strategy. Industrial espionage? It hasn't been mentioned much so far, but I'm sure it will be if the theft doesn't take. If you read about industrial espionage cases, this doesn't quite fit it, especially if the engineer truly dropped his phone. What Apple really wants is to make anyone think very hard about what's happening to Chen before outing their unreleased products, and decide it just isn't worth it.
The judge's charge to the jury will frame the issues very differently. Chen's criminal culpability will not turn on the question of the finder's efforts to return, since the finder sold the phone to him, an act that moots that question. When the finder sold the phone, he became a thief, since selling an object is inconsistent with attempting to return it. The finder had not obtained title to the phone by complying with the civil code, and therefore Chen's guilt will turn on the question of whether a reasonable person would have questioned the provenance of the phone, conducted an appropriate inquiry, and , if so, would have reasonably concluded that the phone belonged to the finder. Gizmodo has published an account which is an admission that Chen was aware of facts that made it quite clear that the finder had no ability to deliver title. That finding leads to a duty of Chen to return the phone to the engineer or to Apple, and prohibits him from taking any action inconsistent with the rights of the true owner--such as disassembling it.
And this analysis ignores the damning evidence that apparently will be offered by the female roommate to the state of mind of the finder. I can assume the facial expressions of the jury listening to the "sucks to be him" testimony will not be encouraging to the defendant or his counsel.
I imagine the reference to "negation" is intended to refer to jury nullification. As someone who has served as the foreman of three juries, and as counsel in several dozen criminal trials, I can tell you that juries take a judge's charge very seriously indeed. Jurors swear an oath to follow the law, and they take that seriously too.
People who serve on juries certainly have prejudices, but it is one thing to spout opinions at the water cooler, on talk radio, or on message boards; it is quite another to ignore a judge's charge, to violate an oath, and to ignore the opinions of eleven fellow jurors. And if one juror reports to the judge that a fellow juror is advocating nullification, the judge will dismiss him and empanel an alternate.
Obviously I can't be certain what the jury will ultimately hear, but I am confident that if the evidence follows the recitals in the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant, it would be highly likely that Chen is convicted of a felony. In reality, though, it is much more likely that Chen will plead guilty, and unless there is some very surprising evidence that has not become public as yet, he would be well-advised to.
It should be abundantly clear that the D.A. is loaded for bear on this one, and I'm not betting on the bear.
