The prosecution’s framing assumes intent, but intent is the hardest element to prove in this entire case. He was asked for “the PIN” under coercive conditions, and he provided a PIN. They didn’t specify which PIN, and they didn’t instruct him to unlock the device — they just demanded a PIN. A duress PIN is designed for situations where a person feels threatened or pressured, and the environment he was in absolutely qualifies as coercive. That makes it extremely difficult to argue that he knowingly and intentionally provided a PIN for the purpose of destroying evidence. The statute they’re using requires proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt. If he was confused, panicked, felt threatened, or believed they simply wanted a PIN, any PIN, that undermines the prosecution’s entire theory. So yes, he gave them a PIN, and yes, the device wiped. But proving that he intended to obstruct rather than comply is a very steep hill for the prosecution to climb.