> Similarly, if the woman receives a phone call with heavy breathing from the man's home phone number, it's certainly possible that he didn't do it: perhaps someone broke into his house and called her. He can certainly argue that in court.
And all he has to do to win is raise reasonable doubt. Get a friend to say "I did it as a prank, and he told me not to." No restraining order violated.
Sure, but you've have to prove it in court. The criminal justice system is used to sorting out claimed alibi's. I'm doubtful you have discovered some novel hack to the justice system.
> And all he has to do to win is raise reasonable doubt. Get a friend to say "I did it as a prank, and he told me not to." No restraining order violated.
The trier of fact -- jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial -- is free (expected, even) to assess the credibility of evidence, including witness testimony. The fact that you get a witness to claim an alternative explanation to one that can be inferred from the prosecutions evidence does not, in and of itself, necessarily equate to reasonable doubt.
This is true, of course, and the prosecution will try to impeach the witness. But testimony without a significant reason to disbelieve I would think would be reasonable doubt if I was on a jury.
I think that's the legal equivalent of your mom saying "of course he couldn't have committed that murder, he was with me that night, we were watching Netflix."
And all he has to do to win is raise reasonable doubt. Get a friend to say "I did it as a prank, and he told me not to." No restraining order violated.