I'm curious, if he goes to trial rather than pleading guilty - how the court is going to prove that he was the one who leaked the video.
I would say it's rather easy. There is evidence that Ralph sent this to Chris Kerr with the intent to humiliate him, and knowing he was streaming online.
Now, you might argue that this was faked. So the courts could demand the records of his Instagram chat-logs from the dates in question, likewise the police could send his phone off to be analysed in a similar manner.
Then it would simply be a case of matching these up. To argue Ralph did not do it at this point, he would have to provide evidence someone else has access to his devices who was in the area at the time - and had a motive - in order to create a reasonable doubt around his hand in this.
It's pretty open and shut in a sense, the problem I think for the prosecution will lie in whether it could be classed as revenge porn. Not sure about the Virginia Statute, but in many places the nature of the video has to meet certain criteria, and there needs to be specific intent to intimidate or humiliate someone through public release - I think that, provided this is relevant to the case, Ralph's defense would be best directing their energy to disputing Ralph intending to release this to the public, and was merely something to release to Chris Kerr.
Edit: The statute states that you need only share intimated photos or viddks without permission, with the intent to harass, coerce or intimidate. Which is why Ralph released them to Chris.
So did Faith consent, she says she was in hospital at the time - pretty hard to give consent if true, and lining up the timing and communication between her and Ralph at the time will show if there was consent given at the time.
Plus, Ralph seems to have convinced Faith that he didn't release the video in some of the leaks - when Faith says Ralph didn't release revenge porn in her statement, in context a fair reading is that Faith does believe it was revenge porn, it's just that Ralph wasn't the one who released it.
I would say the evidence is all there, but with anything like this: a slimey lawyer, a technical fuck up in evidence collection or shitty witnesses could fuck it up. It's all to play for - I just don't want the harvest to end!