3 ms·

Wait, how can “evidence” you weren’t convicted with be used for sentencing of a crime you were convicted for? So the gov couldn’t prove its case but it still g

• mikeyouse 4y ago
  So the evidence proved their case for the main charges - as demonstrated by the jury’s guilty verdict. The government then provides a sentencing recommendation and Ross’s lawyers can dispute anything the government claims. The bar for the sentencing enhancements is “a preponderance of evidence” which is something akin to 51% vs guilty / not-guilty which requires the jury to be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” or closer to 100%. The judge weighed the evidence, weighed Ulbricht’s lawyers’ responses and found a preponderance of evidence that he did indeed order the hits which enhanced (extended) the sentence he was given. It’s been awhile since I looked at the transcripts but at the time I couldn’t believe how bad his lawyers were. They offered almost no reply to damning accusation after damning accusation.
  • zionic 4y ago
    To me this seems like a fairly clear-cut constitutional violation. You are being deprived of life/liberty at sentencing, if the judge can use information/"accusations" that the government failed to prove then you are being punished without conviction.