3 ms·

Interesting. Thanks for all that information. It does sound like a weird case. But I can also tell you that, having been involved in a number of federal crimin

Interesting. Thanks for all that information. It does sound like a weird case. But I can also tell you that, having been involved in a number of federal criminal trials, when the defense is exceptionally weak, the trials always get weird in precisely the way you describe. Ulbricht is hardly the first to discover that when the government has you dead to rights, often the best you can do is try to raise the jurors' skepticism about the government's evidence, and elicit testimony from people who think you're a nice guy and "would never do such a thing." One obvious, and classic way of doing this is to suggest someone is framing you, and try to make the government prove that the mysterious third party didn't manufacture all the prosecution's evidence.

tptacek 12y ago
Does that ever work? I'm curious about why he didn't plead out. Nick Weaver accused his lawyer, Joshua Dratel, of deliberately dragging the case out to secure more fees. But that's not very plausible; Dratel has a long resume (among other things, he was the first civilian lawyer at Guantanamo) and presumably doesn't need to shake down bitcoin drug dealers for fees. I wonder whether the prosecution was simply unwilling to offer up any meaningful concessions in response to a guilty plea.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  I've never seen it work. Then again, in the trials I've been involved in [many, I suspect, by HN standards, but few compared to a practicing criminal attorney], nobody has ever been acquitted, for any reason. (At least in these cases, it wasn't because the system is rigged against them -- it's because the U.S. Attorney in the district where I worked is very politically visible, and tends only to take slam dunk cases to trial.) As for why he didn't plead out: who knows. It's possible the government didn't want to give him much of a deal, given the high profile of the case, and their apparent mountain of evidence. Occasionally, the government actually wants to go to trial. It's also possible that Ulbricht was either desperate to be exonerated or, relatedly, had a somewhat deluded sense of his prospects at trial (either through self-delusion, or through an overly optimistic lawyer). Some people insist on their day in court, no matter how ill-advised, from a practical perspective, that may be.
- m3rc 12y ago
  There was no plea deal offered to Ulbricht, and he steadfastly refused to plead guilty. Honestly hearing stuff like that makes me pretty damn confident in the prosecution's case, Ulbricht really does seem like the kind of guy who thought he was infallible.
- pakled_engineer 12y ago
  He couldn't plea, by admitting he ran the site he thus admits he took part in conspiracy to murder a witness which is the second trial he faces after this one in Maryland.

tptacek 12y ago

Does that ever work? I'm curious about why he didn't plead out. Nick Weaver accused his lawyer, Joshua Dratel, of deliberately dragging the case out to secure more fees. But that's not very plausible; Dratel has a long resume (among other things, he was the first civilian lawyer at Guantanamo) and presumably doesn't need to shake down bitcoin drug dealers for fees. I wonder whether the prosecution was simply unwilling to offer up any meaningful concessions in response to a guilty plea.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
I've never seen it work. Then again, in the trials I've been involved in [many, I suspect, by HN standards, but few compared to a practicing criminal attorney], nobody has ever been acquitted, for any reason. (At least in these cases, it wasn't because the system is rigged against them -- it's because the U.S. Attorney in the district where I worked is very politically visible, and tends only to take slam dunk cases to trial.) As for why he didn't plead out: who knows. It's possible the government didn't want to give him much of a deal, given the high profile of the case, and their apparent mountain of evidence. Occasionally, the government actually wants to go to trial. It's also possible that Ulbricht was either desperate to be exonerated or, relatedly, had a somewhat deluded sense of his prospects at trial (either through self-delusion, or through an overly optimistic lawyer). Some people insist on their day in court, no matter how ill-advised, from a practical perspective, that may be.
m3rc 12y ago
There was no plea deal offered to Ulbricht, and he steadfastly refused to plead guilty. Honestly hearing stuff like that makes me pretty damn confident in the prosecution's case, Ulbricht really does seem like the kind of guy who thought he was infallible.
pakled_engineer 12y ago
He couldn't plea, by admitting he ran the site he thus admits he took part in conspiracy to murder a witness which is the second trial he faces after this one in Maryland.