3 ms·

This is a tricky subject but I feel compelled to point out that it's not so simple. If I hadn't talked to the USAO when I received a proffer letter in 2006, I m

This is a tricky subject but I feel compelled to point out that it's not so simple. If I hadn't talked to the USAO when I received a proffer letter in 2006, I might have been in Aaron's position trying to defend myself at trial for doing nothing wrong. Instead, the U.S. Attorney (a different one) decided to drop the issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/technology/13secure.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/technology/13secure.html). I don't know if there's really a lesson to be learned from the story other than to be very careful when it comes to doing anything that might be even remotely perceived as "hacking" because the justice system is incredibly broken. You don't get to choose your prosecutor.

thomasz 14y ago
"Do not talk to the police" does not mean "do never cooperate or be utterly destroyed". There may be some damn good reasons to cooperate, but you need an attorney to estimate the impact of any statement you make, even if you did nothing wrong.
harshreality 14y ago
You were the potential defendant, and you were facing indictment and prosecution for a crime 95% of jurors wouldn't understand, and your lawyer probably suggested that you accept the proffer. I can see how that might be a good idea, because a proffer is a gateway to the prosecution offering immunity, a good plea deal, or dropping the case entirely. Talking to the police/feds/prosecution under other circumstances, or accepting a proffer when you're not under investigation or without advice of counsel, is where the problem lies.