3 ms·

I think I can clear it up: The accusation of murder-for-hire would not hold up. The FBI would not be able to prove the required elements for the deed, because i

I think I can clear it up: The accusation of murder-for-hire would not hold up. The FBI would not be able to prove the required elements for the deed, because in order to prove it, the FBI would need to actually drive or mail something with the intent of murder [1]. In the released indictment [2] (Apparently there seems to be a superseding indictment), DPR was charged on four counts. Count one is "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy", none of the counts are "Murder-For-Hire". But, there are three overt (motivating) acts for the "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy": a) Provide a platform for selling drugs b) Solicit a murder-for-hire c) Logging in as admin on Silk Road So, while the charge "Murder-For-Hire" probably seems hard to prove (as stated above), using the intent of it to justify the count "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy" worked here. In a sense, I believe, DPR can not be labeled officially with "murder-for-hire", but in order to protect his "Continuing Criminal Enterprise" and as such commit "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy" it appears that he would have committed a "murder-for-hire" crime. Sources: [1] https://www.springsteadbartish.com/federal-criminal-defense-attorneys/federal-murder-for-hire-charges/ https://www.springsteadbartish.com/federal-criminal-defense-... [2] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/2015/03/25/US%20v.%20Ross%20Ulbricht%20Indictment.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy...

tptacek 4y ago
Not so much: the distinction you're talking about, of how much the FBI would actually have had to do to charge their sting, is I believe what attempt liability (and, really, inchoate liability in general) is all about (this comes up a lot in child sex stings). What seems more likely is that the murder-for-hire thing is messier than the broader, abstract things he was charged with, and they had him dead to rights on that stuff anyways. Without meaningfully contesting and refuting the murder-for-hire stuff, it's relevant conduct for the sentencing; it did the work the DOJ needed it to do. The big issue in these discussions is the idea that the murder-for-hire stuff was prejudicial --- that it wasn't a part of the case, but was allowed to hang over the case to taint the jury. But that's clearly not true; he was indicted for it, twice, in the SDNY case.
- jokabrink 4y ago
  > it did the work the DOJ needed it to do. Certainly. And no wonder that the other charges from the Maryland District were dismissed. > he was indicted for it, twice, in the SDNY case. You mean, he was charged and found guilty of "Murder-For-Hire"? This I don't follow. I thought overt acts serve the purpose of evidence for the charges/counts rather than being charges itself. In any case, DPR clearly concluded, that paying someone to kill someone else in order to preserve his anonymity/enterprise was OK. He even committed it.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    You're right: they're explicitly not charges themselves. They're evidence of a broader inchoate crime.

tptacek 4y ago

Not so much: the distinction you're talking about, of how much the FBI would actually have had to do to charge their sting, is I believe what attempt liability (and, really, inchoate liability in general) is all about (this comes up a lot in child sex stings). What seems more likely is that the murder-for-hire thing is messier than the broader, abstract things he was charged with, and they had him dead to rights on that stuff anyways. Without meaningfully contesting and refuting the murder-for-hire stuff, it's relevant conduct for the sentencing; it did the work the DOJ needed it to do. The big issue in these discussions is the idea that the murder-for-hire stuff was prejudicial --- that it wasn't a part of the case, but was allowed to hang over the case to taint the jury. But that's clearly not true; he was indicted for it, twice, in the SDNY case.

jokabrink 4y ago
> it did the work the DOJ needed it to do. Certainly. And no wonder that the other charges from the Maryland District were dismissed. > he was indicted for it, twice, in the SDNY case. You mean, he was charged and found guilty of "Murder-For-Hire"? This I don't follow. I thought overt acts serve the purpose of evidence for the charges/counts rather than being charges itself. In any case, DPR clearly concluded, that paying someone to kill someone else in order to preserve his anonymity/enterprise was OK. He even committed it.
- tptacek 4y ago
  You're right: they're explicitly not charges themselves. They're evidence of a broader inchoate crime.