3 ms·

I thought the same thing until I read the entirety of the article. As others have pointed out, the DHS investigator Jared DerYeghiayan himself was convinced Mar

I thought the same thing until I read the entirety of the article. As others have pointed out, the DHS investigator Jared DerYeghiayan himself was convinced Mark Karpeles was Roberts as late as 2 months prior to Ulbricht's arrest (and admitted as much under cross-examination). It seems insane, almost far-fetched even, until you consider that DerYeghiayan even went as far as to draft a search warrant for Karpeles' email. If it wasn't at least plausible, any defense attorney who went down this road would be a fool. Having sat on a jury before, I can guarantee you that this will have at least some impact on the decision. Even if you're convinced the defendant is guilty, the job of the jury is to act as finders of fact, and if sufficient doubt is raised to that end an acquittal is likely. The trial I sat on had a similar event unfold where the law enforcement involved completely screwed up and made some admissions during cross-examination that severely harmed reaching a guilty verdict.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Law enforcement revealing true exculpatory information during cross-examination isn't screwing up -- like all witnesses, their duty is to tell the truth. (Its true that some of them may view their job as getting a conviction, and may view providing the truth as screwing up when it is contrary to that, but its a very bad idea to reinforce that meme.)
- krrrh 12y ago
  The parent comment was phrased somewhat ambiguously, but I think he meant that the law enforcement admitted to screwing up, not that they screwed up by admitting.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  As krrrh observed, I wasn't suggesting that they screwed up by mentioning anything. I apologize for not making that obvious. I have a very deep respect for law enforcement, and I'd like to believe that on the whole they're good people. Reports that shed negative light on LEOs are common IMO like other forms of negative news: It's more interesting or captivates more viewers. That said, it's like anything else. Depending on circumstance, stress, etc., they might make mistakes without thinking much of it. When these mistakes are admitted through cross-examination, then yes, it's a screw up. On the trial I sat on, one of the most damning admissions also came from a DHS employee who admitted they handled evidence without gloves. The admission in that case wasn't the screw up--violating the number one rule of handling evidence was!
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > That said, it's like anything else. Depending on circumstance, stress, etc., they might make mistakes without thinking much of it. When these mistakes are admitted through cross-examination, then yes, it's a screw up. Whether it is admitted under cross-examination is irrelevant to whether it is a screw-up. (Though it is relevant to whether the screw-up is compounded by, or transformed into, an abuse of government power. Because that is what happens when it is material to the case and concealed, actively or passively.)
    - Zancarius 12y ago
      > Whether it is admitted under cross-examination is irrelevant to whether it is a screw-up. I'm having a difficult time following your line of reasoning. I think it's completely relevant. If a LEO mishandles evidence or otherwise makes a mistake (henceforth referred to as "screw-up"), and then admits such a thing under cross-examination, it's perfectly relevant to the trial. In nearly all circumstances, those sorts of screw-ups are completely accidental (stress, overworked, etc.), and are extremely important to the jury's decision-making process. You know, I just read back through my original comment, and it seems to me that you're conflating two separate points I made. So, perhaps I should reiterate and clarify in case my original comment was misleading: 1) DerYeghiayan's admission was not a screw-up. You were confusing this with an example I used for purposes of illustration in my second paragraph. The agent is going to tell the truth, obviously, but he is not going to volunteer that information without first being asked while under oath (it's not his obligation to do so). Again, not a screw-up. He just happened to share a detail that may possibly affect the jury's decision. This is also unrelated to point #2. 2) Where I mentioned screw-up was with regards to a trial I sat on, which I offered up tangentially as an example of mistakes law enforcement can make that undoubtedly change the direction of the trial toward an acquittal. During that specific trial, DHS border patrol agents admitted they handled the evidence without gloves--that was a complete and total screw-up. In fact, it was so much so, that I distinctly remember a comment made during cross-examination of the special agent assigned by the sheriff's office. When he caught wind of what the DHS agents did, his first reaction was "Crap! We screwed up." So yes, mistakes can be made, and yes they're completely relevant to the decision-making process of a jury. Another example comes from the same jury pool I was assigned to, but on a trial I wasn't part of. The trial lasted, as I understand from other jurors, for the whole of about 3-4 hours. During cross-examination, one of the LEOs involved inadvertently admitted details related to another case or circumstance involving the defendant (the exact details I can't remember), and resulted in the defense attorney immediately seeking council with the judge, and the judge declaring a mistrial due to the nature of the material the officer shared while under oath. So, no, I don't agree. It's completely relevant, especially when mistakes are admitted or committed under cross-examination. (The latter being a circumstance of biasing the jury while under cross-examination.) Now, it's likely I'm completely missing your point, in which case I'd greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate, because I have a strong suspicion that our disagreement may be based on us thinking about or arguing two entirely unrelated points. Indeed, we might be more in agreement than not, but I'm sincerely having trouble following why you're caught up with this notion that mistakes of this category are irrelevant to a jury trial.

dragonwriter 12y ago

Law enforcement revealing true exculpatory information during cross-examination isn't screwing up -- like all witnesses, their duty is to tell the truth. (Its true that some of them may view their job as getting a conviction, and may view providing the truth as screwing up when it is contrary to that, but its a very bad idea to reinforce that meme.)

krrrh 12y ago
The parent comment was phrased somewhat ambiguously, but I think he meant that the law enforcement admitted to screwing up, not that they screwed up by admitting.
Zancarius 12y ago
As krrrh observed, I wasn't suggesting that they screwed up by mentioning anything. I apologize for not making that obvious. I have a very deep respect for law enforcement, and I'd like to believe that on the whole they're good people. Reports that shed negative light on LEOs are common IMO like other forms of negative news: It's more interesting or captivates more viewers. That said, it's like anything else. Depending on circumstance, stress, etc., they might make mistakes without thinking much of it. When these mistakes are admitted through cross-examination, then yes, it's a screw up. On the trial I sat on, one of the most damning admissions also came from a DHS employee who admitted they handled evidence without gloves. The admission in that case wasn't the screw up--violating the number one rule of handling evidence was!
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > That said, it's like anything else. Depending on circumstance, stress, etc., they might make mistakes without thinking much of it. When these mistakes are admitted through cross-examination, then yes, it's a screw up. Whether it is admitted under cross-examination is irrelevant to whether it is a screw-up. (Though it is relevant to whether the screw-up is compounded by, or transformed into, an abuse of government power. Because that is what happens when it is material to the case and concealed, actively or passively.)
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    > Whether it is admitted under cross-examination is irrelevant to whether it is a screw-up. I'm having a difficult time following your line of reasoning. I think it's completely relevant. If a LEO mishandles evidence or otherwise makes a mistake (henceforth referred to as "screw-up"), and then admits such a thing under cross-examination, it's perfectly relevant to the trial. In nearly all circumstances, those sorts of screw-ups are completely accidental (stress, overworked, etc.), and are extremely important to the jury's decision-making process. You know, I just read back through my original comment, and it seems to me that you're conflating two separate points I made. So, perhaps I should reiterate and clarify in case my original comment was misleading: 1) DerYeghiayan's admission was not a screw-up. You were confusing this with an example I used for purposes of illustration in my second paragraph. The agent is going to tell the truth, obviously, but he is not going to volunteer that information without first being asked while under oath (it's not his obligation to do so). Again, not a screw-up. He just happened to share a detail that may possibly affect the jury's decision. This is also unrelated to point #2. 2) Where I mentioned screw-up was with regards to a trial I sat on, which I offered up tangentially as an example of mistakes law enforcement can make that undoubtedly change the direction of the trial toward an acquittal. During that specific trial, DHS border patrol agents admitted they handled the evidence without gloves--that was a complete and total screw-up. In fact, it was so much so, that I distinctly remember a comment made during cross-examination of the special agent assigned by the sheriff's office. When he caught wind of what the DHS agents did, his first reaction was "Crap! We screwed up." So yes, mistakes can be made, and yes they're completely relevant to the decision-making process of a jury. Another example comes from the same jury pool I was assigned to, but on a trial I wasn't part of. The trial lasted, as I understand from other jurors, for the whole of about 3-4 hours. During cross-examination, one of the LEOs involved inadvertently admitted details related to another case or circumstance involving the defendant (the exact details I can't remember), and resulted in the defense attorney immediately seeking council with the judge, and the judge declaring a mistrial due to the nature of the material the officer shared while under oath. So, no, I don't agree. It's completely relevant, especially when mistakes are admitted or committed under cross-examination. (The latter being a circumstance of biasing the jury while under cross-examination.) Now, it's likely I'm completely missing your point, in which case I'd greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate, because I have a strong suspicion that our disagreement may be based on us thinking about or arguing two entirely unrelated points. Indeed, we might be more in agreement than not, but I'm sincerely having trouble following why you're caught up with this notion that mistakes of this category are irrelevant to a jury trial.