"he likely didn't have any experts to refute the prosecution's evidence."

What evidence? They didn't have any other than a user name. An arm chair lawyer who watched too many shows could have created reasonable doubt.

But in a trial room, that evidence was 100% there:

> Prosecution: Mister Klayme, the criminal messages were sent from a Kik username called "fus ro dah". What's your Kik username?

> Klayme: It's "fus ro dah".

> Prosecution: It logically follows that Mister Klayme was the sender, and is therefore guilty of the offense.