5 ms·

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 sen

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...
baumandm 6y ago
I had the same question so I did some digging. Here's some relevant excerpts from the decision from the US Court of Appeals: > A district court may consider as part of its sentencing determination uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence as long as that conduct does not increase either the statutory minimum or maximum available punishment. > ... > Here, the six drug-related deaths (and more importantly, Ulbricht's attempted murders for hire) were uncharged facts that did not increase either the statutory twenty-year minimum or the maximum life sentence applicable to the crimes of which he was found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the jury. [1] And later: > Thus, even without considering that enhancement, the drug convictions yielded an offense level of 48, which is higher than the maximum offense level recognized by the Guidelines, for which a sentence of life imprisonment is recommended even for someone who, like Ulbricht, has no prior criminal convictions. > ... > Accordingly, while a life sentence for selling drugs alone would give pause, we would be hard put to find such a sentence beyond the bounds of reason for drug crimes of this magnitude.[67] But the facts of this case involve much more than simply facilitating the sale of narcotics. [2] To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums. However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence. Had evidence to those things not been presented at trial, it's possible (probable?) that his sentence would have been shorter. Personally, this seems problematic as while it doesn't technically increase the sentencing maximum, it allows the judge to bypass the jury to determine guilt on certain facts. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7379835016583659897#p128 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=737983501658365... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7379835016583659897#p130 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=737983501658365...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  A couple minor issues with the summary, as there is some confusion of sentencing guideline ranges and statutory ranges for the particular offenses: > To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums. Correct. > However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence. Two different things are in play here that seem to have been somewhat conflated: Because the statutory punishment for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of by the jury has a maximum life sentence, uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence can be used to set sentencing within that maximum without violating the right to trial by jury, so the court did not act impermissibly by considering the uncharged conduct and setting life imprisonment having considered it. Because the sentencing guidelines range for the offenses he was convicted of by the jury, without the uncharged conduct considered, also supported an offense level for which a life sentence is recommended for an offender with no prior convictions, the sentence of life imprisonment would have been reasonable for the drug crimes alone, even had the court not considered the uncharged murder for hire actions. That is, a life sentence would have been called for by the guidelines for the drug offenses alone.

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...

baumandm 6y ago

I had the same question so I did some digging. Here's some relevant excerpts from the decision from the US Court of Appeals: > A district court may consider as part of its sentencing determination uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence as long as that conduct does not increase either the statutory minimum or maximum available punishment. > ... > Here, the six drug-related deaths (and more importantly, Ulbricht's attempted murders for hire) were uncharged facts that did not increase either the statutory twenty-year minimum or the maximum life sentence applicable to the crimes of which he was found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the jury. [1] And later: > Thus, even without considering that enhancement, the drug convictions yielded an offense level of 48, which is higher than the maximum offense level recognized by the Guidelines, for which a sentence of life imprisonment is recommended even for someone who, like Ulbricht, has no prior criminal convictions. > ... > Accordingly, while a life sentence for selling drugs alone would give pause, we would be hard put to find such a sentence beyond the bounds of reason for drug crimes of this magnitude.[67] But the facts of this case involve much more than simply facilitating the sale of narcotics. [2] To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums. However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence. Had evidence to those things not been presented at trial, it's possible (probable?) that his sentence would have been shorter. Personally, this seems problematic as while it doesn't technically increase the sentencing maximum, it allows the judge to bypass the jury to determine guilt on certain facts. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7379835016583659897#p128 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=737983501658365... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7379835016583659897#p130 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=737983501658365...

dragonwriter 6y ago
A couple minor issues with the summary, as there is some confusion of sentencing guideline ranges and statutory ranges for the particular offenses: > To summarize, Apprendi v. New Jersey says that facts not found by a jury cannot be used to raise sentence maximums. Correct. > However, sentencing guidelines for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of give a maximum life sentence. Therefore, using uncharged facts to inform sentencing is permissible because it doesn't actually increase the maximum possible sentence. Two different things are in play here that seem to have been somewhat conflated: Because the statutory punishment for the crimes Ulbricht was convicted of by the jury has a maximum life sentence, uncharged conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence can be used to set sentencing within that maximum without violating the right to trial by jury, so the court did not act impermissibly by considering the uncharged conduct and setting life imprisonment having considered it. Because the sentencing guidelines range for the offenses he was convicted of by the jury, without the uncharged conduct considered, also supported an offense level for which a life sentence is recommended for an offender with no prior convictions, the sentence of life imprisonment would have been reasonable for the drug crimes alone, even had the court not considered the uncharged murder for hire actions. That is, a life sentence would have been called for by the guidelines for the drug offenses alone.