5 ms·

The verdict did not include the hitman charges and the separate trial about them was stopped[1], so hard to tell if they were substantial. [1] https://news.bit

by lixtra 6y ago

The verdict did not include the hitman charges and the separate trial about them was stopped[1], so hard to tell if they were substantial. [1] https://news.bitcoin.com/ross-ulbricht-murder-for-hire-indictment-to-be-dismissed/ https://news.bitcoin.com/ross-ulbricht-murder-for-hire-indic... Edit: To quote Wikipedia (more precise than my statement): Ulbricht was not charged in his trial in New York federal court with any murder-for-hire,[28][36] but evidence was introduced at trial supporting the allegations.[28][37] The evidence that Ulbricht had commissioned murders was considered by the judge in sentencing Ulbricht to life, and was a factor in the Second Circuit's decision to affirm the life sentence.[37] A separate indictment against Ulbricht in federal court in Maryland on a single murder-for-hire charge, alleging that he contracted to kill one of his employees (a former Silk Road moderator),[38] was dismissed with prejudice by prosecutors in July 2018, after his New York conviction and sentence became final.[39][40]

tptacek 6y ago
Both the verdict and the sentencing memoranda included the murder-for-hire scheme.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- stickfigure 6y ago
  And yet that's profoundly unsatisfying. Ulbrecht was not convicted of murder-for-hire; he was accused of it, and that accusation influenced his sentence for other crimes. Which a fairly large part of this community believe aren't actual crimes.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    He was convicted of the charge for which the murder-for-hire was a predicate! A finding of fact in the trial was in fact that he ordered someone's murder!
    - stickfigure 6y ago
      He was convicted of conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and evidence of a murder-for-hire plot was used to support the narcotics trafficking conspiracy. You may think this indirection is a minor technical difference, but I see a totally different standard of evidence. This isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the prosecutors thought they could sustain a murder-for-hire charge, I'm sure they would have prosecuted it. It's a more serious crime! So I'm skeptical. Taking a different tack here - even if he was in fact guilty of attempted murder-for-hire, what's a reasonable punishment for that? Is 7 years in prison long enough?
      - bawolff 6y ago
        I dont know, but gut feeling wise, murder for hire feels very wrong. Operating an exchange where consenting adults bought and sold dangerous substances where they had a reasonable idea what the risks were seems much less so. I think its fair to spend >7 years on muder for hire (if that was the charge). The other charges not so much, but most drug charges in usa seem excessive to me, so that's probably par for the course.
      - scott_w 6y ago
        I don’t know enough about the law in the USA to give an answer to your first point (whether the attempted murder allegations should factor into sentencing). However, to your second point: no, 7 years is not enough for attempted murder. Failing to commit a crime (because your hitmen were actually the police) is as morally reprehensible as succeeding. You performed the actions, formed intent, it’s just the victim got lucky. Your sentence shouldn’t be reduced because of their luck.
      - spoonjim 6y ago
        I don't think there should be much of a difference at all between the punishments for attempted murder and murder. Just enough to keep someone from trying to finish the job if they feel that they might need to kill someone to reduce the likelihood of going to jail for attempted murder.
      - matkoniecz 6y ago
hombre_fatal 6y ago
I know nothing about the justice system, so how was an allegation as grave as murder-for-hire considered for sentencing (and surely informed the bulk of the sentencing) without being one of the actual charges? His only convictions were money laundering, computer hacking, and conspiracy to traffic narcotics. I'm sure the court documents put a much finer point on it than a Wikipedia paragraph, but that's too much effort right now at 11:40pm. Just looking for some light HN procrastination.
- vmception 6y ago
  congratulations, you found one of the many troubles with this case. they used things he wasn't on trial for, to sway the jury and influence his sentencing. they also withheld that the murder-for-hire theatre was done by corrupt federal agents who were already captured and on trial for doing that amongst other things with silk road. it also worked.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Actually, the Wikipedia article led me to help answer my own question. The second point made in this amicus curiae brief in the request to the Supreme Court to overturn Ulbrecht's sentence makes the same point that you do: that it is not OK for judges to enhance sentences by determining their own facts for the purposes of sentencing that were not affirmed in charges for which the jury found the defendant guilty. FWIW SCOTUS didn't take the case, but as least some lawyers who presumably have some idea what they're talking about agree with you. http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/34432/20180205155810342_180202%20Brief%20for%20E-filing.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/34432/201802...
- Fezzik 6y ago
  For sentencing, almost anything can be presented to the court to enhance/decrease (aggravating/mitigating circumstances, in legal jargon) the sentence, regardless of if the thing presented has been proven or would even be admissible during a trial. The rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing/disposition - the court often considers things like remorse of the convict, the convict’s history, and can also consider other allegations made against the convict even if those allegations have not been proved in court. An example of this is when the dozens and dozens of victims of Larry Nassar spoke at his sentencing, even though he was not actually convicted of abusing them all. Judges have broad discretion in what they consider at sentencing. And, unfortunately for Ulbrecht, the crimes he was convicted of carried high maximum sentences. I think the minimum he was facing was 20 years. The whole thing is ridiculous. Edit, for clarity: the ridiculous sentencing of Ulbrecht is ridiculous, not a judge allowing so many of Nassar’s victims to speak at his sentencing. When I re-read my comment I realized it could be construed that way...

by lixtra 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

Both the verdict and the sentencing memoranda included the murder-for-hire scheme.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stickfigure 6y ago
And yet that's profoundly unsatisfying. Ulbrecht was not convicted of murder-for-hire; he was accused of it, and that accusation influenced his sentence for other crimes. Which a fairly large part of this community believe aren't actual crimes.
- tptacek 6y ago
  He was convicted of the charge for which the murder-for-hire was a predicate! A finding of fact in the trial was in fact that he ordered someone's murder!
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    He was convicted of conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and evidence of a murder-for-hire plot was used to support the narcotics trafficking conspiracy. You may think this indirection is a minor technical difference, but I see a totally different standard of evidence. This isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the prosecutors thought they could sustain a murder-for-hire charge, I'm sure they would have prosecuted it. It's a more serious crime! So I'm skeptical. Taking a different tack here - even if he was in fact guilty of attempted murder-for-hire, what's a reasonable punishment for that? Is 7 years in prison long enough?
    - bawolff 6y ago
      I dont know, but gut feeling wise, murder for hire feels very wrong. Operating an exchange where consenting adults bought and sold dangerous substances where they had a reasonable idea what the risks were seems much less so. I think its fair to spend >7 years on muder for hire (if that was the charge). The other charges not so much, but most drug charges in usa seem excessive to me, so that's probably par for the course.
    - scott_w 6y ago
      I don’t know enough about the law in the USA to give an answer to your first point (whether the attempted murder allegations should factor into sentencing). However, to your second point: no, 7 years is not enough for attempted murder. Failing to commit a crime (because your hitmen were actually the police) is as morally reprehensible as succeeding. You performed the actions, formed intent, it’s just the victim got lucky. Your sentence shouldn’t be reduced because of their luck.
    - spoonjim 6y ago
      I don't think there should be much of a difference at all between the punishments for attempted murder and murder. Just enough to keep someone from trying to finish the job if they feel that they might need to kill someone to reduce the likelihood of going to jail for attempted murder.
    - matkoniecz 6y ago

hombre_fatal 6y ago

I know nothing about the justice system, so how was an allegation as grave as murder-for-hire considered for sentencing (and surely informed the bulk of the sentencing) without being one of the actual charges? His only convictions were money laundering, computer hacking, and conspiracy to traffic narcotics. I'm sure the court documents put a much finer point on it than a Wikipedia paragraph, but that's too much effort right now at 11:40pm. Just looking for some light HN procrastination.

vmception 6y ago
congratulations, you found one of the many troubles with this case. they used things he wasn't on trial for, to sway the jury and influence his sentencing. they also withheld that the murder-for-hire theatre was done by corrupt federal agents who were already captured and on trial for doing that amongst other things with silk road. it also worked.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Actually, the Wikipedia article led me to help answer my own question. The second point made in this amicus curiae brief in the request to the Supreme Court to overturn Ulbrecht's sentence makes the same point that you do: that it is not OK for judges to enhance sentences by determining their own facts for the purposes of sentencing that were not affirmed in charges for which the jury found the defendant guilty. FWIW SCOTUS didn't take the case, but as least some lawyers who presumably have some idea what they're talking about agree with you. http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/34432/20180205155810342_180202%20Brief%20for%20E-filing.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/34432/201802...
Fezzik 6y ago
For sentencing, almost anything can be presented to the court to enhance/decrease (aggravating/mitigating circumstances, in legal jargon) the sentence, regardless of if the thing presented has been proven or would even be admissible during a trial. The rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing/disposition - the court often considers things like remorse of the convict, the convict’s history, and can also consider other allegations made against the convict even if those allegations have not been proved in court. An example of this is when the dozens and dozens of victims of Larry Nassar spoke at his sentencing, even though he was not actually convicted of abusing them all. Judges have broad discretion in what they consider at sentencing. And, unfortunately for Ulbrecht, the crimes he was convicted of carried high maximum sentences. I think the minimum he was facing was 20 years. The whole thing is ridiculous. Edit, for clarity: the ridiculous sentencing of Ulbrecht is ridiculous, not a judge allowing so many of Nassar’s victims to speak at his sentencing. When I re-read my comment I realized it could be construed that way...