3 ms·

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

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.
      - mchannon 8y ago
        I was a former public defender, guy. Umm.. thank you for your service? It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on. Well, I'm on my fourth (or fifth? I've lost count), and statistics suggest there must have been a bad one in there somewhere. I think I have a firmer grip than a lot of people. Allow me to demonstrate: The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right. Judges don't keep a running tally of non-tolled days and poll counsel on whether they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. In my particular case, 1006 days passed between original indictment and trial, and while my counsel could have brought an STA/6th amendment motion to dismiss and didn't, I wouldn't quite characterize that as waiving. And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once. Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false. What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act. But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause.

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.
    - mchannon 8y ago
      I was a former public defender, guy. Umm.. thank you for your service? It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on. Well, I'm on my fourth (or fifth? I've lost count), and statistics suggest there must have been a bad one in there somewhere. I think I have a firmer grip than a lot of people. Allow me to demonstrate: The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right. Judges don't keep a running tally of non-tolled days and poll counsel on whether they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. In my particular case, 1006 days passed between original indictment and trial, and while my counsel could have brought an STA/6th amendment motion to dismiss and didn't, I wouldn't quite characterize that as waiving. And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once. Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false. What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act. But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause.