There are so many logical inconsistencies in this verdict by the Judge.
He acknowledges the prosecution's claim that the defendant planted the gun, but claims that the evidence shows (i.e. lack of testimony) that the defendant didn't go near the vehicle or wasn't seen planting the weapon.
And yet, the DNA evidence shows DNA consistent with the defendant, yet this judge handwaves it away with a claim that the defendant took off his gloves to rifle through his bag in his own car.
You can either have one or the other. You can't have both!
If the evidence (testimony) shows that Stockely didn't go near the car, then how did his DNA get on the gun?
And if you accept his DNA on the gun because he went to the car and retrieved it, then THAT IS evidence that he went to the car and clear opportunity for him to plant the weapon.
Also, the bit about heroine dealers without a firearm is uncommon... I just don't... wow!