3 ms·

> I'm not a fan of the defendant here, but I am a fan of holding the authorities to the rules. You know it's their job to uphold the law. Yes, evidence is inad

> I'm not a fan of the defendant here, but I am a fan of holding the authorities to the rules. You know it's their job to uphold the law. Yes, evidence is inadmissible based on how it is obtained. However, there are rules and procedures for how you get evidence excluded from a trial. This is why you pay good money for good lawyers: they know the rules for excluding evidence. I recommend watching the 1992 moive "My Cousin Vinny".

munchbunny 12y ago
The unfortunate part of all of this is that we're now in a system where you win by paying more money to cover more technicalities than the other guy. Sure, this follows the rules, but it seems perverse to lose on a technicality that is easy to resolve with a "hey, prove you own the server. you did? ok."
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  But the thing is the judge gave them exactly that option and Ulbricht's lawyer inexplicably declined to take it - see page 22 onwards. So either a) Ulbright can't prove he owns the server (in which case he can't very well claim privacy rights in something that's not his property to start with), or b) he is not willing to, even though doing so might keep most of the evidence out of trial. Maybe that's because of some super-clever legal tactic they plan to unveil at appeal (although this seems very unlikely, as this is such a basic procedural issue) or maybe it's for some extrajudicial reason, like because it would reveal the identity of some partner in crime who would then seek terrible revenge. Or any other number of other possibilities.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Shouldn't the government's claim that the server was owned by Ulbright effectively concede the point?
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I don't know, but I think Ulbricht would need to concede that explictly. I don't feel like digging through all the filings to try and figure out his counsel's strategy at this hour, though.
TehCorwiz 12y ago
Your typo fits the Pesci's accent.

munchbunny 12y ago

The unfortunate part of all of this is that we're now in a system where you win by paying more money to cover more technicalities than the other guy. Sure, this follows the rules, but it seems perverse to lose on a technicality that is easy to resolve with a "hey, prove you own the server. you did? ok."

anigbrowl 12y ago
But the thing is the judge gave them exactly that option and Ulbricht's lawyer inexplicably declined to take it - see page 22 onwards. So either a) Ulbright can't prove he owns the server (in which case he can't very well claim privacy rights in something that's not his property to start with), or b) he is not willing to, even though doing so might keep most of the evidence out of trial. Maybe that's because of some super-clever legal tactic they plan to unveil at appeal (although this seems very unlikely, as this is such a basic procedural issue) or maybe it's for some extrajudicial reason, like because it would reveal the identity of some partner in crime who would then seek terrible revenge. Or any other number of other possibilities.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Shouldn't the government's claim that the server was owned by Ulbright effectively concede the point?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I don't know, but I think Ulbricht would need to concede that explictly. I don't feel like digging through all the filings to try and figure out his counsel's strategy at this hour, though.

TehCorwiz 12y ago

Your typo fits the Pesci's accent.