In fact, this reminds me of another case they had in Durham sometime around 2003 (sorry, running on memory here from another thread some time ago). A man was accused of rape.
There was some evidence to tie him in to the crime.
He turned state's evidence and accused another man of helping him. Because he was given immunity, the state did not try him, it tried the other man. The other man was jailed, held in custody for a year; then tried, and the jury found him not guilty at once, and the jury foreman criticized the court for wasting their time (highly unsual).
There was absolutely no evidence against the second man at all, just the accusation. And the theory goes that the entire thing might have been a ploy by a friend of the man first accused to get him off without a sentence (and have him granted immunity). So the second man--totally innocent--went through hell as a part of the scheme.
But that's Durham.
And there's no reason to think anything has changed there since.
This case has certainly changed my opinion of judges, the courthouse system, prosecutors, and everything else. I now trust none of them.