Also without any transparency into randomness of how judges and jurors are picked, and a absurdly large number of laws, there's definitely major room for bending the law to one's will.
One example of this, though not the worst abuse, is OJ's 2008 prosecution where he got 9-33 years, and his accomplice who brought the gun got probation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_robbery_case
That's the point - she shouldn't need to defend her actions and position as a journalist, certainly not to a court. That's the point of press freedom.
You state this as if it needs to be done. It's settled law. The state is clearly overreaching.
Journalistic freedoms shouldn't have to be retried just because some large corporation is irked.
That said, it feels like the trespass charge could be successfully prosecuted (if not for the difficulties in proving that were mentioned in the article), but riot? To call a journalist a protestor merely for being there? That seems like a HUGE stretch.