According to sections under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, "Intent without authority to access or causing to be accessed [a computer file] that is exclusively reserved for the government of the United States..[and such access] affects the government's [operation] of its computers by means of altering...damaging...destroying...or preventing authorized use" is a felony, punishable by a maximum of a $1000 fine and a one-year prison sentence.

Intent at issue

Other laws applicable to the Morris case rest on the proof of commercial or private gain for or malice by the perpetrator.

"Intent--it's the main issue," said Thomas A. Guidoboni, Morris' lawyer in an interview last week.

Frusciante agreed it was important to find out the state of Morris' mind while the virus was being produced, but did not consider its importance paramount.

"What you're trying to do is show what he intended to do," he said. "[Proving] it is a help...to be able to show that this person was knowingly initiating a virus, that he was talking about what systems he wanted to hit, his awareness of what systems it would hit...and what systems it wouldn't."

"But I wouldn't consider it [proof of intent] the key to unlock the door. I wouldn't say that any given item is the hinge" of the case, he said.

"You very rarely have direct evidence of some-one watching somebody doing something illegal on the next computer," said the state prosecutor. "It is circumstantial evidence built up in lots of pieces."

Sudduth and Graham have maintained that Morris did not intend for the program to get out of hand. MIT programmers who contained the attack at their facilities said a programming error, instructing the virus to reproduce itself in every 10th--instead of 10,000th--computer, led to its explosive growth and crashing of several systems. Without that error, friends said, the virus would have harmlessly lodged in a few computers, allowing Morris to track his creation's progress.

Knowledge

Also central to the virus case is proving that the perpetrator has the knowledge to write a program, is in a position to place it into a system, and is aware of its consequences, said Frusciante. "It's a very subjective kind of situation," he said, where time dates from a computer on a program, a man's alibi, and the testimony of his friends all form admissible evidence, but with different weights assigned to them by a grand jury.

Sudduth and Graham's testimony becomes important in this light by showing the likelihood of certain legal conclusions, he said.

"Certainly [Morris'] communication to other people can lead you to believe what they knew as true and certain knowledge he had and that's why it's very important," Frusciante said.

"This is extremely significant. You want to know what was on the state of his mind," he said.

The second half of the prosecutor's case relies on interpretation of existing laws. Even if Morris is charged with any crime and found guilty, the extent of his punishment is problematic. "Whether or not the defendent is guilty is one thing, whether he should be punished for something he did not see...that's another question," Frusciante said.