Defense attorneys should definitely try to swing this. Particularly people who have been arrested for sharing CP on the Gnutella network, and convicted based entirely off of forensic analysis of their drive. If the forensic technicians did not rule out the attack in the .pdf I linked to, then the integrity of their analysis is clearly compromised and I would imagine that the evidence should be thrown out, especially if they no longer have a copy of the drive for further analysis or if they conclude that they cannot differentiate between someone who intentionally downloaded and shared CP and somebody who fell victim to this attack. I have never heard of somebody trying to use this particular attack as a defense in court (although some people have tried to use a virus defense, they often fail as there is no presence of a virus detected. Somebody skilled in hacking and forensics needs to demonstrate that the inability to detect a virus does not rule out forensics coming to an incorrect conclusion). In fact, I doubt that anybody has even considered this as a defense. The presented attack has always been in terms of turning Gnutella into a DDoS botnet (get arbitrary nodes to download files from a website to drain its resources), I don't know if anybody has considered the implications this attack has in regard to establishing guilt in cases involving illegal file possession and transfer.