What's with people taking what accused computer criminals say at face value?
"Watt says he didn’t know the code would be used to intercept credit card data. 'I assumed it would have something to do with web traffic or instant messaging conversations or logins of some other protocol not related to the credit card information,' he told Wired in 2010.
Prosecutors disputed this and maintained that chat logs recovered from Gonzalez’s computer described illegal carding activity that Gonzalez conducted and showed that Watt at least had broad knowledge of what Gonzalez was doing, if not the details. As Gonzalez and his gang hacked target after target, he sent Watt links to news stories describing the breaches, though he didn’t acknowledge in the correspondence that he was behind the attacks.
Watt’s attorney told Wired in 2010 that his client accepted 'responsibility for aiding people that he knew would commit wrongdoing. However, he is very disturbed by the government’s aggressive attempt to make him into more than what he is.'"
It sounds like the jury didn't believe his story, particularly given the IRC logs and the links from Gonzalez describing the hacks. I can't say it's an unreasonable conclusion on their part.