8 ms·

So it is a double life sentence for nonviolent crimes. Isn’t it a little ridiculous?

deweller 8y ago
Yes. This was a high-profile case with lots of public visibility. Asking for a huge sentence supported the political and career ambitions of prosecutors involved with the case. The prosecutors did not ask for what they thought was a fair sentence for the alleged crimes. Instead they asked for the biggest sentence they thought they could attain.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Do you know what caused the US attorney to move to dismiss? Public comment?
  - branweb 8y ago
    I'm quite ignorant of our (US) legal system, but the article seemed to say that it was dropped because the Supreme Court confirmed Ulbricht's life-sentence for the drug charges. US Attorney figured he wasn't going anywhere anyway, I'm guessing.
    - mchannon 8y ago
      Even though he's convicted and incarcerated on other charges, Ross still has a right to a speedy trial, and charges have to be brought within a statute of limitations (five years in most cases, and although there are exceptions for murder and certain other crimes, I don't believe there was an actual murder here). My guess is the clock ran out and the USAO decided their scare piece fulfilled its intended purpose. Always easier to get a conviction and maximum sentence against somebody when you can insinuate they did something even worse.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        The speedy trial right and the statute of limitations are two very separate things. The statute of limitations is satisfied if charges are filed before the SOL expires. The speedy trial right provides that a defendant must be brought to trial within X days of charges being filed, unless the defendant voluntarily waives that right. (In CA, it was 60 days when I still practiced crimlaw. Federal law provides for 70 days, but no trial can begin within 30 days of arraignment.) Most defendants waive the speedy trial right for some reason, usually because their attorneys convince it's a good idea. (It never is. You never want the prosecution to have more time to investigate.)
        mchannon 8y ago
        They're not as separate as many seem to think. The reason lawyers tend to ignore the speedy trial act is a practical one. They object, the judge dismisses the charges without prejudice, and the prosecution refiles the charges (or substantially similar ones). Speedy trial clock reset to zero. Everybody except the defendant shares a laugh. In many cases (including mine), the prosecutor will of their own accord and with no apparent prompting, supersede their indictment with minimal changes, achieving much the same result. It's like hitting the snooze button on a case you want to procrastinate (or sweat/squeeze the defendant into a plea agreement). This works great until the case is dismissed without prejudice and then the prosecution tries to refile past the statute of limitations. Whoops. Check, and mate. The only practical power of the speedy trial act.
        gamblor956 8y ago
        I was a former public defender, guy. If a judge dismisses charges, then the defendant goes free. Defendants are okay with that. Sure, it gives prosecutors time to file more charges (so long as the SOL hasn't expired), but they only get that one free bite. The second time they file, judges will only dismiss charges on prosecutor motion with prejudice. In many cases (including mine), the prosecutor will of their own accord and with no apparent prompting, supersede their indictment with minimal changes, achieving much the same result. It's like hitting the snooze button on a case you want to procrastinate (or sweat/squeeze the defendant into a plea agreement). It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on. The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right. The superseding indictment only extends that window by 70 days...for the new charges. And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once. After that, the prosecutors must show cause as to why they couldn't get things right the first time. This works great until the case is dismissed without prejudice and then the prosecution tries to refile past the statute of limitations. Whoops. Check, and mate. The only practical power of the speedy trial act. What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act.
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    The headline and opening sentence are worded to try and fool you into thinking that it's an Attorney General (i.e., the state) initiating this motion; it's actually just some random lawyer.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      You're confused. Attorneys General of the states don't matter, because this is a federal thing ("IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", as the motion says on top.). And the top prosecutor in the federal system for a state is called... the "U.S. Attorney". It's certainly not some random attorney who happens to hold U.S. citizenship.
Tomte 8y ago
I wouldn‘t call it nonviolent. He caused several deaths (and that they could/would/might have died otherwise without his involvement doesn‘t absolve him). Not to speak of the murders he paid for, but that were thankfully stopped in the stage where it‘s still only an attempt.
- imsofuture 8y ago
  Sorry, how did he cause several deaths?
  - Tomte 8y ago
    You can look up the articles and the HN commentary yourself. In short: he supplied drugs to people who then died of those drugs. (Long version: he ran a platform where people sold the victims drugs, from which sales he financially profited). Victims who subsequently died. I assume you think that they would have overdosed from other peoples' drugs anyway, but as I wrote, I don't accept that, so we can probably not discuss this productively.
    - wilsonnb3 8y ago
      > (Long version: he ran a platform where people sold the victims drugs, from which sales he financially profited). Victims who subsequently died. It's a stretch to say that he caused their deaths because a third party willingly sold them drugs on his platform that they then willingly ingested. He was involved in their deaths, yes, but he did not cause them.
      - Tomte 8y ago
        Generally, you're legally a cause of something if it couldn't have happened without your action. That others contributed, as well, doesn't absolve you. (Otherwise the sellers would claim, that the marketplace is the real culpit, and they just sold some stuff) There are certain limits to it, so that totally far-flung causations don't count, but this is not a close call.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I would not call being a drug kingpin a nonviolent crime.
- dokument 8y ago
  For the sake of a debate, why wouldn't you? (just sticking to drug kingpin and not including the murder for hire stuff...)
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I would not skip that stuff, because that inevitably comes into it.
    - atemerev 8y ago
      Murder for hire charges were dismissed.
      - cwyers 8y ago
        Because he's already serving consecutive life sentences and the prosecutor sees no state interest in pursuing a conviction when the defendant is already going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Cool. That doesn't change things one bit; he still tried to have someone killed because he thought they were a threat to his empire. He is no freedom fighter, he is no crusader, he is a common drug dealer.

Yes. This was a high-profile case with lots of public visibility. Asking for a huge sentence supported the political and career ambitions of prosecutors involved with the case. The prosecutors did not ask for what they thought was a fair sentence for the alleged crimes. Instead they asked for the biggest sentence they thought they could attain.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Do you know what caused the US attorney to move to dismiss? Public comment?
- branweb 8y ago
  I'm quite ignorant of our (US) legal system, but the article seemed to say that it was dropped because the Supreme Court confirmed Ulbricht's life-sentence for the drug charges. US Attorney figured he wasn't going anywhere anyway, I'm guessing.
  - mchannon 8y ago
    Even though he's convicted and incarcerated on other charges, Ross still has a right to a speedy trial, and charges have to be brought within a statute of limitations (five years in most cases, and although there are exceptions for murder and certain other crimes, I don't believe there was an actual murder here). My guess is the clock ran out and the USAO decided their scare piece fulfilled its intended purpose. Always easier to get a conviction and maximum sentence against somebody when you can insinuate they did something even worse.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      The speedy trial right and the statute of limitations are two very separate things. The statute of limitations is satisfied if charges are filed before the SOL expires. The speedy trial right provides that a defendant must be brought to trial within X days of charges being filed, unless the defendant voluntarily waives that right. (In CA, it was 60 days when I still practiced crimlaw. Federal law provides for 70 days, but no trial can begin within 30 days of arraignment.) Most defendants waive the speedy trial right for some reason, usually because their attorneys convince it's a good idea. (It never is. You never want the prosecution to have more time to investigate.)
      - mchannon 8y ago
        They're not as separate as many seem to think. The reason lawyers tend to ignore the speedy trial act is a practical one. They object, the judge dismisses the charges without prejudice, and the prosecution refiles the charges (or substantially similar ones). Speedy trial clock reset to zero. Everybody except the defendant shares a laugh. In many cases (including mine), the prosecutor will of their own accord and with no apparent prompting, supersede their indictment with minimal changes, achieving much the same result. It's like hitting the snooze button on a case you want to procrastinate (or sweat/squeeze the defendant into a plea agreement). This works great until the case is dismissed without prejudice and then the prosecution tries to refile past the statute of limitations. Whoops. Check, and mate. The only practical power of the speedy trial act.
        gamblor956 8y ago
        I was a former public defender, guy. If a judge dismisses charges, then the defendant goes free. Defendants are okay with that. Sure, it gives prosecutors time to file more charges (so long as the SOL hasn't expired), but they only get that one free bite. The second time they file, judges will only dismiss charges on prosecutor motion with prejudice. In many cases (including mine), the prosecutor will of their own accord and with no apparent prompting, supersede their indictment with minimal changes, achieving much the same result. It's like hitting the snooze button on a case you want to procrastinate (or sweat/squeeze the defendant into a plea agreement). It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on. The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right. The superseding indictment only extends that window by 70 days...for the new charges. And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once. After that, the prosecutors must show cause as to why they couldn't get things right the first time. This works great until the case is dismissed without prejudice and then the prosecution tries to refile past the statute of limitations. Whoops. Check, and mate. The only practical power of the speedy trial act. What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  The headline and opening sentence are worded to try and fool you into thinking that it's an Attorney General (i.e., the state) initiating this motion; it's actually just some random lawyer.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    You're confused. Attorneys General of the states don't matter, because this is a federal thing ("IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", as the motion says on top.). And the top prosecutor in the federal system for a state is called... the "U.S. Attorney". It's certainly not some random attorney who happens to hold U.S. citizenship.

Tomte 8y ago

I wouldn‘t call it nonviolent. He caused several deaths (and that they could/would/might have died otherwise without his involvement doesn‘t absolve him). Not to speak of the murders he paid for, but that were thankfully stopped in the stage where it‘s still only an attempt.

imsofuture 8y ago
Sorry, how did he cause several deaths?
- Tomte 8y ago
  You can look up the articles and the HN commentary yourself. In short: he supplied drugs to people who then died of those drugs. (Long version: he ran a platform where people sold the victims drugs, from which sales he financially profited). Victims who subsequently died. I assume you think that they would have overdosed from other peoples' drugs anyway, but as I wrote, I don't accept that, so we can probably not discuss this productively.
  - wilsonnb3 8y ago
    > (Long version: he ran a platform where people sold the victims drugs, from which sales he financially profited). Victims who subsequently died. It's a stretch to say that he caused their deaths because a third party willingly sold them drugs on his platform that they then willingly ingested. He was involved in their deaths, yes, but he did not cause them.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Generally, you're legally a cause of something if it couldn't have happened without your action. That others contributed, as well, doesn't absolve you. (Otherwise the sellers would claim, that the marketplace is the real culpit, and they just sold some stuff) There are certain limits to it, so that totally far-flung causations don't count, but this is not a close call.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

I would not call being a drug kingpin a nonviolent crime.

dokument 8y ago
For the sake of a debate, why wouldn't you? (just sticking to drug kingpin and not including the murder for hire stuff...)
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I would not skip that stuff, because that inevitably comes into it.
  - atemerev 8y ago
    Murder for hire charges were dismissed.
    - cwyers 8y ago
      Because he's already serving consecutive life sentences and the prosecutor sees no state interest in pursuing a conviction when the defendant is already going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Cool. That doesn't change things one bit; he still tried to have someone killed because he thought they were a threat to his empire. He is no freedom fighter, he is no crusader, he is a common drug dealer.