> In ruling against Rawls, the court of appeals has decided that his constitutional rights against being forced to self-incriminate are not being breached. This

> In ruling against Rawls, the court of appeals has decided that his constitutional rights against being forced to self-incriminate are not being breached. This is because of an exception to the fifth amendment known as a “foregone conclusion”, which is when authorities already know something exists – in this case, police say they know there are child abuse images on the hard drives because they have a witness who saw the files (Rawls’ sister). > Why don’t they go to trial without the files allegedly stored on the encrypted devices? It comes down to reasonable doubt. If there is genuinely reasonable doubt that the disk contains CP, then it cannot be a foregone conclusion that the disk contains CP. If it is a foregone conclusion that the disk contains CP, then the judge should simply instruct the jury to that effect. The jury might disagree, but that's why we have juries: so that the justice system doesn't imprison people for years without independent oversight.