9 ms·

It probably won’t even get to jury. It might get dismissed with prejudice before it goes to trial.

rchaud 5y ago
For a case that could potentially embarrass the state, I'd think the prosecution would try hard to make sure the case appears on the right judge's docket.
- jbullock35 5y ago
  What ability do prosecutors have to maneuver their case onto a particular judge's docket? How would they do that?
  - pixl97 5y ago
    You talking about the cops, the DA, and the judge that eat lunch at the same table, attend the same parties, and go to the same church? You tell me how indirect influences could possibly happen in separated and just legal system. Sorry for the snark, but your post seems very naive on how the legal system works.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      They just asked how. They didn't say it's impossible. The question of how is interesting. The question of whether is also interesting.
    - jbullock35 5y ago
      Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I know almost nothing about how the legal system works.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  They can try all they want, but do they have a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing?
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    This is the point. Even if it gets before a biased judge, any lawyer worth their salt will see that they have no case and will call for a jury trial
  - badRNG 5y ago
    IANAL, but the local Missouri computer crime statute is very broad [1]. Technically, the reporter seems to have factually "Accessed a computer, a computer system, or a computer network, and intentionally examined information about another person" without "authorization." Considering the conservative PAC for the state has already pushed attack ads against the reporter [2], and the fact that the prosecutor is elected (potentially supported by conservative PACs), I definitely see a possibility of this going to court and potentially arriving at a conviction. Again, IANAL, and I don't know the jurisprudence or case history behind this particular statute. [1] https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.095 https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.095 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBPeRa7U8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBPeRa7U8E
    - ensignavenger 5y ago
      The reporter did not access anything they did not have permission to access! It was on a publicly accessible website, posted publicly, for the purpose of public dissemination. The statue is even more restrictive than that- the part you didn't quote: "A person commits the offense of tampering with computer data if he or she knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization" No one could possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reporter did not have "reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization". The reporter did not know that the website had private information on it when he accessed the page. The law does allow for a civil action to be taken by the owner of the computer system (In this case the state) which would lower the standard of evidence to more likely than not- but given the facts of the case, I don't think it comes even close to meeting that bar.
      - badRNG 5y ago
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Why would it embarrass the state any more than the governor’s public comments already have?
  - jvanderbot 5y ago
    Just because you understand it to be a ridiculous charge and view the gov as embarrassing himself, does not mean all have made that judgment for themselves. Those holdouts would latch onto a verdict as truth and view the gov as vindicated. That's basic legal harassment 101.
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      I’m sure the governor would rather see this all the way to the end, lose and then cry foul than just admit he is wrong too. He probably already knows he is wrong but no politician would ever admit it. Politicians will dig in their heals until they’ve dug their own grave than admit fallibility. They are incapable of it.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I think the ship has sailed on avoiding embarrassment to the state… My feeling is that this is deliberate; the American right wing appears to rather like performative stupidity these days.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Strategic ignorance is the basis of religion and much social power.
leros 5y ago
It will still end up costing this person tons of legal fees and probably years of stress to get there though.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Not only legal fees (which probably will be covered by someone else in this case) but mandatory court appearances that are scheduled antagonistically and punitively. The punishments for missing these dates are among the most extreme and disproportionate in the whole system. (With no due process, and COVID infections for all.)
  - leros 5y ago
    Yep. As I understand, many innocent people take guilty pleas because the time cost of court appearances is unbearable or will cost them their job. I've become pretty jaded about the justice system as I've learned more about it.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      Yes, and also, the plea bargains on offer usually provide a huge reduction from the maximum risk from being found guilty. Not uncommon: plead guilty and pay $100 fine, or be found guilty and go to jail for up to 1 year. The guilty and the innocent alike are given as many reasons as possible to plead guilty.
kingcharles 5y ago
I don't know if you or the post above have any knowledge of the criminal justice system in the USA. I've been in the front-row for thousands of criminal cases and the number that got dismissed before trial, not based on evidence suppression which doesn't apply in this case, is pretty much zero. I got one dismissed based on perjured grand jury testimony, and another based on an indictment flaw, but neither of those things would apply here. Whether a jury would convict. Juries are much more complicated than most people imagine. For a start, the prosecutor is going to show the statute and the evidence and show how the person violated the statute. There might not be a proper legal defense. You might be thinking of jury nullification where a jury acquits a defendant even where they are proven guilty, simply because the charges are bullshit. This almost never happens. Although it really should happen much more often.

For a case that could potentially embarrass the state, I'd think the prosecution would try hard to make sure the case appears on the right judge's docket.

jbullock35 5y ago
What ability do prosecutors have to maneuver their case onto a particular judge's docket? How would they do that?
- pixl97 5y ago
  You talking about the cops, the DA, and the judge that eat lunch at the same table, attend the same parties, and go to the same church? You tell me how indirect influences could possibly happen in separated and just legal system. Sorry for the snark, but your post seems very naive on how the legal system works.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    They just asked how. They didn't say it's impossible. The question of how is interesting. The question of whether is also interesting.
  - jbullock35 5y ago
    Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I know almost nothing about how the legal system works.
sgjohnson 5y ago
They can try all they want, but do they have a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing?
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  This is the point. Even if it gets before a biased judge, any lawyer worth their salt will see that they have no case and will call for a jury trial
- badRNG 5y ago
  IANAL, but the local Missouri computer crime statute is very broad [1]. Technically, the reporter seems to have factually "Accessed a computer, a computer system, or a computer network, and intentionally examined information about another person" without "authorization." Considering the conservative PAC for the state has already pushed attack ads against the reporter [2], and the fact that the prosecutor is elected (potentially supported by conservative PACs), I definitely see a possibility of this going to court and potentially arriving at a conviction. Again, IANAL, and I don't know the jurisprudence or case history behind this particular statute. [1] https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.095 https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.095 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBPeRa7U8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBPeRa7U8E
  - ensignavenger 5y ago
    The reporter did not access anything they did not have permission to access! It was on a publicly accessible website, posted publicly, for the purpose of public dissemination. The statue is even more restrictive than that- the part you didn't quote: "A person commits the offense of tampering with computer data if he or she knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization" No one could possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reporter did not have "reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization". The reporter did not know that the website had private information on it when he accessed the page. The law does allow for a civil action to be taken by the owner of the computer system (In this case the state) which would lower the standard of evidence to more likely than not- but given the facts of the case, I don't think it comes even close to meeting that bar.
    - badRNG 5y ago
tshaddox 5y ago
Why would it embarrass the state any more than the governor’s public comments already have?
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  Just because you understand it to be a ridiculous charge and view the gov as embarrassing himself, does not mean all have made that judgment for themselves. Those holdouts would latch onto a verdict as truth and view the gov as vindicated. That's basic legal harassment 101.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    I’m sure the governor would rather see this all the way to the end, lose and then cry foul than just admit he is wrong too. He probably already knows he is wrong but no politician would ever admit it. Politicians will dig in their heals until they’ve dug their own grave than admit fallibility. They are incapable of it.
rsynnott 5y ago
I think the ship has sailed on avoiding embarrassment to the state… My feeling is that this is deliberate; the American right wing appears to rather like performative stupidity these days.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Strategic ignorance is the basis of religion and much social power.

leros 5y ago

It will still end up costing this person tons of legal fees and probably years of stress to get there though.

DarylZero 5y ago
Not only legal fees (which probably will be covered by someone else in this case) but mandatory court appearances that are scheduled antagonistically and punitively. The punishments for missing these dates are among the most extreme and disproportionate in the whole system. (With no due process, and COVID infections for all.)
- leros 5y ago
  Yep. As I understand, many innocent people take guilty pleas because the time cost of court appearances is unbearable or will cost them their job. I've become pretty jaded about the justice system as I've learned more about it.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Yes, and also, the plea bargains on offer usually provide a huge reduction from the maximum risk from being found guilty. Not uncommon: plead guilty and pay $100 fine, or be found guilty and go to jail for up to 1 year. The guilty and the innocent alike are given as many reasons as possible to plead guilty.

kingcharles 5y ago

I don't know if you or the post above have any knowledge of the criminal justice system in the USA. I've been in the front-row for thousands of criminal cases and the number that got dismissed before trial, not based on evidence suppression which doesn't apply in this case, is pretty much zero. I got one dismissed based on perjured grand jury testimony, and another based on an indictment flaw, but neither of those things would apply here. Whether a jury would convict. Juries are much more complicated than most people imagine. For a start, the prosecutor is going to show the statute and the evidence and show how the person violated the statute. There might not be a proper legal defense. You might be thinking of jury nullification where a jury acquits a defendant even where they are proven guilty, simply because the charges are bullshit. This almost never happens. Although it really should happen much more often.