Trial and Error

Chet Holmes was a frustrated man. He had spent over a year trying to track down Douglas Armitage to present him with a sizable check from the estate of Holmes's client, but had no luck. Except now. He learned that an associate of his client had been killed in an auto accident while giving Douglas a ride to the airport so Douglas could fly to New York for college. The other vehicle was transporting an inmate to prison. Holmes knew that his client's associate had a passenger. But the accident report had to be mistaken, because it listed three persons killed without mentioning the passenger in the other vehicle. When Douglas's former roommate, Scott McCabe, saw Douglas on campus he called Holmes, who believed he could prove the inmate had survived the accident and was impersonating Douglas. Holmes convinced the campus police to arrest the man Holmes claimed was an imposter who had not only escaped lawful custody, but was defrauding the college. Trouble was, Holmes had never met McCabe's former roommate. And in the span of a year the alleged imposter no longer resembled McCabe's former roommate. At the preliminary hearing, would the prosecution be able to prove its case based on such slim evidence?