I see two possibilities. 1. They don't have enough evidence to convict, and know it, and thus are waiting for this evidence. The problem here being a questio

I see two possibilities. 1. They don't have enough evidence to convict, and know it, and thus are waiting for this evidence. The problem here being a question of how are they sure enough of guilt to hold him in jail for so long. 2. They do have enough evidence to convict, but they rather have a precedent destroying (or weakening) encryption. This would be like the San Bernardino iPhone case. I'm not sure which possibility is worse.