4 ms·

The evidence would have to be looked at in regards to the totality of the evidence. They couldn't just say you handed the phone to somebody else without knowing

by lhnz 3y ago

The evidence would have to be looked at in regards to the totality of the evidence. They couldn't just say you handed the phone to somebody else without knowing this and showing evidence that this was the case. Assertions without evidence are generally not persuasive, and in criminal cases they must prove that you committed the crime beyond "reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is on the prosecution. And, if there was corroboration with the digital trail of the mobile device, and you appearing on a CCTV at a location matching the GPS at some point or chatting to somebody on the phone, it'd possibly further break the insinuation that you didn't have the device during this time period.

Retric 3y ago
In practice reasonable doubt is generally ignored by juries. Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal.” Risking a bench trial is poor odds as they are significantly more likely to convict when things aren’t clear. Roughly 3/4 the time they agree, but when they disagree judges are ~5x more likely to convict. The difference seems to largely be bias on the side of Judges.
- lhnz 3y ago
  While the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt is a sweeping statement. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a cornerstone of many legal systems and taught and emphasized to jurors in instructions before they deliberate.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. There’s a common option that someone only gets to trial when there’s significant evidence they are guilty. Which on the surface is a reasonable assumption, but that bias has real impact on people’s behavior. Taking a plea deal as an innocent person is often a very wise decision.
    - lhnz 3y ago
      Actually your post containing the sweeping statement doesn't contain any evidence. You haven't substantiated your claim.
      - Retric 3y ago
        My statements didn’t included citations but my argument did reference multiple studies and post verdict interviews, a subtle difference. Here’s a quote for my 3/4 agree, 5x more likely to convict when they disagree: “ The judge and jury in the Kalven-Zeisel survey of 3,500 criminal cases agreed in 78% of the cases on whether or not to convict. When they disagreed, the judge would have convicted when the jury acquitted in 19% of the cases, and the jury convicted when the judge would have acquitted in 3% of the cases” https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/jury-decisions-vs-judges-decisions/ https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psycholog... Feel free to look up some more, there’s some variation here.
        lhnz 3y ago
        The claim you made which I referred to as a sweeping statement was that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt. This study you cite is not relevant to that claim.
        Retric 3y ago
        Yet you made no reference to it in your poorly executed attack. How about just a baseline do juries even understand what it means? “Numerous appellate courts have cautioned trial judges not to explain the reasonable doubt standard to juries.” https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/taking-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-seriously/#easy-footnote-bottom-18-19 https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/taking-beyond-a-reasona... The term is quite literally meaningless to some people yet: “In one case, a jury asked for a “layman’s” explanation of “reasonable doubt,” and an appellate court said the trial judge acted properly by simply rereading the original charge.” I could go on, but instead I am going to simply ask you for some demonstration as to why you think it is commonly applied.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  Reasonable doubt is not ignored in general but there are a few exceptions.
snvzz 3y ago
>And, if there was corroboration with the digital trail of the mobile device, and you appearing on a CCTV at a location matching the GPS at some point or chatting to somebody on the phone, it'd possibly further break the insinuation that you didn't have the device during this time period. I see no advantage to sharing the data in the cloud, vs just storing it locally in your phone. You can still use it for your own benefit, while preventing it from being used against you.
- bmicraft 3y ago
  That would be true if it were an option. Google hasn't implemented such a feature und 3rd party apps differ features and are probably general worse, especially considering how android blocks background activity in low battery situations
  - snvzz 3y ago
    It's certainly possible (osmand can store tracks, with configurable sample rate based granularity). It is just not easy to do. There's many stoppers to doing so like the one you've described. No doubt Google makes it really easy to give up all your data. Very hard to keep it private and local. And this is a horrible trend.
- lhnz 3y ago
  > I see no advantage to sharing the data in the cloud, vs just storing > it locally in your phone. You have to look at this from the perspective of the reliability and integrity of digital evidence. If the data is stored locally it could be argued that it's possible that you have tampered with it, particularly since you possess the skill set necessary to do so. On the other hand, if it is stored on the cloud, it's likely that you won't have the level of access required to tamper with the data, and that there will be an auditable transaction history with information about the identity of anybody that made changes. Google will be able to provide information to the court on the level of security that applies to the data -- in fact, data from Google services is already known to be legally admissable assuming it passes relevance, reliability and integrity tests. Of course, you might be able to create something similar locally, but it's more complicated and untested: you'd need to be able to prove that you don't have the ability to retroactively amend the data (write access, encryption keys, etc). I agree that it would be nicer if: the digital evidence wasn't accessible by others and was also reliable and with integrity protection. Maybe an option would be to encrypt it with your public key and write it into a public blockchain?

by lhnz 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

In practice reasonable doubt is generally ignored by juries. Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal.” Risking a bench trial is poor odds as they are significantly more likely to convict when things aren’t clear. Roughly 3/4 the time they agree, but when they disagree judges are ~5x more likely to convict. The difference seems to largely be bias on the side of Judges.

lhnz 3y ago
While the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt is a sweeping statement. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a cornerstone of many legal systems and taught and emphasized to jurors in instructions before they deliberate.
- Retric 3y ago
  It’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. There’s a common option that someone only gets to trial when there’s significant evidence they are guilty. Which on the surface is a reasonable assumption, but that bias has real impact on people’s behavior. Taking a plea deal as an innocent person is often a very wise decision.
  - lhnz 3y ago
    Actually your post containing the sweeping statement doesn't contain any evidence. You haven't substantiated your claim.
    - Retric 3y ago
      My statements didn’t included citations but my argument did reference multiple studies and post verdict interviews, a subtle difference. Here’s a quote for my 3/4 agree, 5x more likely to convict when they disagree: “ The judge and jury in the Kalven-Zeisel survey of 3,500 criminal cases agreed in 78% of the cases on whether or not to convict. When they disagreed, the judge would have convicted when the jury acquitted in 19% of the cases, and the jury convicted when the judge would have acquitted in 3% of the cases” https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/jury-decisions-vs-judges-decisions/ https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psycholog... Feel free to look up some more, there’s some variation here.
      - lhnz 3y ago
        The claim you made which I referred to as a sweeping statement was that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt. This study you cite is not relevant to that claim.
        Retric 3y ago
        Yet you made no reference to it in your poorly executed attack. How about just a baseline do juries even understand what it means? “Numerous appellate courts have cautioned trial judges not to explain the reasonable doubt standard to juries.” https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/taking-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-seriously/#easy-footnote-bottom-18-19 https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/taking-beyond-a-reasona... The term is quite literally meaningless to some people yet: “In one case, a jury asked for a “layman’s” explanation of “reasonable doubt,” and an appellate court said the trial judge acted properly by simply rereading the original charge.” I could go on, but instead I am going to simply ask you for some demonstration as to why you think it is commonly applied.
nuancebydefault 3y ago
Reasonable doubt is not ignored in general but there are a few exceptions.

snvzz 3y ago

>And, if there was corroboration with the digital trail of the mobile device, and you appearing on a CCTV at a location matching the GPS at some point or chatting to somebody on the phone, it'd possibly further break the insinuation that you didn't have the device during this time period. I see no advantage to sharing the data in the cloud, vs just storing it locally in your phone. You can still use it for your own benefit, while preventing it from being used against you.

bmicraft 3y ago
That would be true if it were an option. Google hasn't implemented such a feature und 3rd party apps differ features and are probably general worse, especially considering how android blocks background activity in low battery situations
- snvzz 3y ago
  It's certainly possible (osmand can store tracks, with configurable sample rate based granularity). It is just not easy to do. There's many stoppers to doing so like the one you've described. No doubt Google makes it really easy to give up all your data. Very hard to keep it private and local. And this is a horrible trend.
lhnz 3y ago
> I see no advantage to sharing the data in the cloud, vs just storing > it locally in your phone. You have to look at this from the perspective of the reliability and integrity of digital evidence. If the data is stored locally it could be argued that it's possible that you have tampered with it, particularly since you possess the skill set necessary to do so. On the other hand, if it is stored on the cloud, it's likely that you won't have the level of access required to tamper with the data, and that there will be an auditable transaction history with information about the identity of anybody that made changes. Google will be able to provide information to the court on the level of security that applies to the data -- in fact, data from Google services is already known to be legally admissable assuming it passes relevance, reliability and integrity tests. Of course, you might be able to create something similar locally, but it's more complicated and untested: you'd need to be able to prove that you don't have the ability to retroactively amend the data (write access, encryption keys, etc). I agree that it would be nicer if: the digital evidence wasn't accessible by others and was also reliable and with integrity protection. Maybe an option would be to encrypt it with your public key and write it into a public blockchain?