4 ms·
I don't quite understand something. If I'm not mistaken, defendants in an US court have the right to know what evidence will be used against them in a timely ma
by billpatrianakos 15y ago
I don't quite understand something. If I'm not mistaken, defendants in an US court have the right to know what evidence will be used against them in a timely manner. It's called discovery. So if MU were to destroy the evidence now that would me both the prosecution and defendant would have no evidence, right? So I'd assume the prosecution has a copy of any evidence and that would be disclosed to MU's attorneys before the trial. So MU wouldn't hold on to the evidence but it'd be out there somewhere.
Right? I feel like an idiot. I feel like I've noticed something so simple that somehow it was already explained but I'm still not getting it.
- pyre 15y agoOnce the only evidence is in possession of the prosecutor, they are legally required to provide it all to you. On the other hand, things can often get 'lost,' 'misplaced,' or 'forgotten' that are crucial to the defense's case. I assume that MegaUpload wants access to the servers to extract the evidence themselves.
- tptacek 15y agoI gather that what makes this problematic is the expense of recovering evidence from the servers, as the hosting company is owed millions of dollars for them. MU does not have millions of dollars anymore.
- meric 15y ago>> MU does not have millions of dollars anymore. They do not have access to it. Whether they still have millions of dollars is as yet undecided.
- mcguire 15y agoI believe the point of the filing is that the defense is claiming that the prosecution is only keeping evidence that supports the prosecution.