Continued from page 1

Judge Glenn Berman said Monday that some of the charges are difficult because they have not been frequently tested by higher courts.

After jurors left for the day, Berman made rulings on the instructions he will give them. But he wasn’t fully confident that an appeals court would not view things differently, especially regarding the bias intimidation law. “I could be wrong,” he told lawyers. “I said this statue to me is muddled. It could be written better.”

The challenge for jurors could be deciding whether the laws apply to what Ravi is alleged to have done.

One of the invasion-of-privacy charges accuses Ravi of viewing exposed private parts or sex acts — or a situation where someone might reasonably expect to see them.

Another accuses him of recording or disseminating the images to others. There’s no evidence that the webstream was recorded, and witnesses said Ravi wasn’t there when Wei opened the webstream for other students.

The bias intimidation charges could also be complicated. Ravi can be convicted of intimidation if he’s also found guilty of an underlying invasion-or-privacy charge. Two of the four charges of that crime are second-degree crimes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Each of those charges says Ravi committed invasion of privacy — or attempted to — out of malice toward gays — or that Clementi believed he was targeted because of his sexuality.

Prosecutors will point to his Twitter postings about his roommate and testimony that Ravi expressed some worries about having a gay roommate. They may also point out that Clementi viewed Ravi’s Twitter page 38 times in the last two days of his life as evidence that Clementi believed, at least, that Ravi was anti-gay.

But defense lawyers will try to rebut that by referring to testimony from several friends of his who testified that he never said anything bad about gays generally — and that he mostly had good things to say about Clementi.