On the other hand, maybe remaining in jail has been of some benefit to Childs. Had be been released on bail and the network suffered an outage, he would probably have been blamed. Judging by the shoddy work done to investigate this case in the first place, I would find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to prove otherwise, even if the outage were really caused by a consultant's itchy finger or someone pulling the wrong cables.
But the fact remains that three out of the four charges were dismissed, leaving Childs with a single charge of "denial of service." The prosecution appealed this dismissal, which held up the trial date for several months, but the appeal was denied on October 13. Childs may finally get a trial -- though definitely not speedy -- at some point in the near future. He will almost certainly plead not guilty to the one remaining charge.
If this is how the law is being applied to the case of a network administrator who did not cause the failure or loss of service of any system, what might we expect if there was a failure, intentional or not? Public stoning? Given how Childs has been treated, it wouldn't surprise me if the City of San Francisco employed such medieval technology. It's that pesky modern stuff that they just don't get.