4 ms·
The indictment asserts that Mr. Swartz intended to distribute the files downloaded but did not substantiate this claim. I wonder what proof they have of this? (
by troutwine 15y ago
The indictment asserts that Mr. Swartz intended to distribute the files downloaded but did not substantiate this claim. I wonder what proof they have of this? (There are, of course, a great many laws dealing with probable intent that need only convince a jury of said intent without demonstrating it's validity.)
- mbreese 15y agoRight... the real question seems to be what was he going to do with the files. The indictment doesn't really offer any evidence to this, and I doubt Aaron will be doing much talking until his defense.
- jgilliam 15y agoThat is what he normally does. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13records.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13records.html
- kragen 15y agoThat was what he did in that case, but it wasn't what he did with the four hundred thousand law review articles he analyzed for conflicts of interest more recently.
- tptacek 15y agoThe indictment doesn't have to provide all the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury process itself is secret (the actual court case won't be).
- nitrogen 15y agoI've heard that, in drug law, possession of more than a certain amount is automatically interpreted as intent to distribute. Maybe the prosecutors in this case intend to argue something similar based on the nature or quantity of the documents retrieved.