4 ms·

His innocence "wasn't decided upon"? Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for

His innocence "wasn't decided upon"? Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released.

icebraining 12y ago
His innocence "wasn't decided upon"? I meant on the court order you mentioned. Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released. You're confusing the issues. The 2012 decision was a federal court, the 2014 decision was a NY State court, where he was charged under a different law. The two are unrelated. In a related note, the only reason he was freed in 2012 was because the system from where he copied the code wasn't developed for interstate and/or international purposes - it had nothing to do with the code being unimportant. That was considered an oversight of the law, and Congress in response of his appeal has since changed it, so had he done the same now, he wouldn't have been released.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  I meant on the court order you mentioned. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, then.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    While that is true generally, I don't agree in this particular case; I think context made it clear. Furthermore, it's factually true - he hasn't been ruled innocent (or rather, not guilty) of the crimes he is accused as of 2014, which are not the same as those from 2012.
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      The State's charges may not have been withdrawn, but their case has been demolished beyond recognition. The important point is that (after 5 years, and considerable expense) the claims that Goldman put out before the public about this guy just haven't been substantiated, and most likely never will be at this point.

icebraining 12y ago

His innocence "wasn't decided upon"? I meant on the court order you mentioned. Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released. You're confusing the issues. The 2012 decision was a federal court, the 2014 decision was a NY State court, where he was charged under a different law. The two are unrelated. In a related note, the only reason he was freed in 2012 was because the system from where he copied the code wasn't developed for interstate and/or international purposes - it had nothing to do with the code being unimportant. That was considered an oversight of the law, and Congress in response of his appeal has since changed it, so had he done the same now, he wouldn't have been released.

dreamweapon 12y ago
I meant on the court order you mentioned. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, then.
- icebraining 12y ago
  While that is true generally, I don't agree in this particular case; I think context made it clear. Furthermore, it's factually true - he hasn't been ruled innocent (or rather, not guilty) of the crimes he is accused as of 2014, which are not the same as those from 2012.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    The State's charges may not have been withdrawn, but their case has been demolished beyond recognition. The important point is that (after 5 years, and considerable expense) the claims that Goldman put out before the public about this guy just haven't been substantiated, and most likely never will be at this point.