Innocent. Was convicted of a total of 7 counts. Five of the charges were changed during the trial. Evidence was 3 unclear pictures taken at 2 ATM machines. Person in picture had long dark hair. Victim claims his hair had been cut. Not true. Accused has short gray, hair. No pictures or signatures for some of the charges. No defense witnesses were called by public the defender.
It is absolutely possible for the DA to amend charges during trial, so long as the court allows the amendment. There are potential legal challenges to such an amendment, but they are not always successful. It sounds here as if the DA decided to argue a different theory relating to the use of the access card, and moved to amend the charges accordingly. If the judge allowed it over objection, there may be valid grounds for appealing the conviction. The ultimate success of any such appeal will be determined by the record of the case.
The deficiencies that you note were apparently not sufficient for the jury(?) to find reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. It is not uncommon for interested parties to disagree with a jury's findings at the conclusion of the case. While your recitation of the facts tends to indicate that the defendant was wrongfully convicted, the jury apparently heard the evidence differently. While the judge could conceivably set aside the verdict that virtually never happens, even when the judge personally disagrees with the verdict.
If the defendant feels that he was inadequately represented at the trial, he may choose to make a motion for a new trial. There are other potential grounds for a new trial motion, depending on the specific facts of the case. These are very difficult motions to win, and require a significant amount of effort to prepare and argue.
After sentencing, the defendant may file a notice of appeal with the court and pursue an appeal of his conviction and/or sentence. Appeals are also quite time consuming and technical, and also typically difficult to win. Quite frankly, the defendant typically wins or loses his case in the trial court. While there are protections in place to attempt to clean up any miscarriages of justice, reviewing courts rarely second guess the jury when it comes to the interpretation of evidence and findings of fact.
The fact that no witnesses were called by the defense doesn't tell us much about the case or the strategy of the defense. Some of the most effective defenses involve no affirmative evidence. Even when witnesses are available, it is the rare defense witness that is ALL good for the defendant. So the defense attorney is typically left with a cost-benefit analysis for each potential witness. Depending on the case, sometimes less is more and the decision is made not to call a witness.
The answer is yes. The DA can change the charges during trial. The defense attorney can object, however, the DA has the authority to change the charges up until the jury starts deliberation.
