9 ms·
> But US prosecutors never presented any forensic evidence to specifically tie Schulte to the publication of the CIA hacking materials on WikiLeaks. Makes you
by yellow_lead 4y ago
> But US prosecutors never presented any forensic evidence to specifically tie Schulte to the publication of the CIA hacking materials on WikiLeaks.
Makes you wonder how he was found guilty. The accused have a big disadvantage at trial. He also represented himself (probably a huge mistake)
- nojito 4y agoWhy do you need to show that he uploaded information to Wikileaks? All they need to show is that he had unauthorized access to the information and downloaded that information.
- bonzini 4y agoI guess some charges only kick in if the information is redistributed.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agowhy do I need to prove you stabbed someone. All I need to show is that you have a kitchen knife
- nojito 4y agoNot a great comparison. There's a reason why whistleblowers are encouraged to only share information that they already have access to in their day to day.
- weberer 4y agoMaybe we'll find out how they got him in the next leak.
- sha256sum 4y agoThis was the third trial. The first two were declared mistrials. So yes, certainly makes one wonder.
- yieldcrv 4y agoThe government can do infinite retrials, starving you of resources to maintain adequate representation I think we need greater protections against this And the dual sovereignty loophole in our protection against double jeopardy should be addressed as well
- panda-giddiness 4y agoNo, they can't. If the defendant is acquitted, that's the end of the line (barring a few dual sovereignty loopholes, as you mentioned, but those also aren't limitless).
- goodluckchuck 4y agoOnly an acquittal, meaning the jury agreed that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One mistrial makes sense. Perhaps there was someone with doubts, but those doubts were unreasonable. Or there was one person who believed the accused was guilty and that person was unreasonable. This could be fixed with a new jury. After two mistrials (for failure to reach a consensus) it’d appear that reasonable minds may differ and the case must not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- ianhawes 4y agoOften times, when a mistrial is declared and a retrial occurs, prosecutors will change strategy. Additionally, rulings from the previous trial are not automatically carried over, so suppressed evidence (for example) can be potentially displayed during a trial if the judge rules differently. Another factor, which is more common in state courts, is the lesser charge consideration. Upon a retrial, the judge can instruct the jury to find a defendant guilty of a lesser crime in lieu of the originally charged crime. For example, manslaughter instead of murder. Overall it’s obviously stacked against the defendant in federal court. Adding in unlimited retrials basically guarantees a defendant will be found guilty eventually.
- 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- icare_1er 4y agoSo your credentials to access an internal repo at the CIA's office does not count as evidence enough ?
- dylan604 4y agoI would hope not. Just because I have a key to unlock a door does not mean that I did unlock the door. It just means when the door is unlocked, I'm one of the people that gets called in to discuss if I had done it or not.
- Beltalowda 4y agoIt's a key he wasn't supposed to have in a high-security environment, and it was used to download the exact data that appeared on WikiLeaks. It's a little bit more than "just happens to have the key".
- InvertedRhodium 4y agoIf I was going to exfiltrate classified data, I'm not sure whose credentials I would use but I am 100% sure they wouldn't be mine.
- _8j50 4y agoJuries are notoriously 50/50 outcome regardless of what went on during trial. He should have picked bench trial.