7 ms·

Most attorneys find it is more effective to present evidence during a trial than after their client has been convicted.

• peteretep 12y ago
  > Records of the investigation that were made available to > Ulbricht only just before his trial in January ... show > that
  • 300bps 12y ago
    If the opposing side dumps new information on you right before trial (as frequently happens), it is your responsibility to make a motion that you be allowed additional time to review it. If you made such a motion and the judge denied it, then that becomes the basis of an appeal in that the judge erred by not allowing the extra time. On the other hand, if you never made such an argument and then try to introduce new evidence in a post-trial motion or appeal, you will not be very successful.
• drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Someone's time in the sun has expired and now he's trying to milk his fame some more. I imagine his long term plan is to rebrand himself Mitnick-style into a "hacker for the people." What's Mitnick doing nowadays? Oh right, selling exploits to the highest bidder.
  • downandout 12y ago
    Mitnick's sentence was ~5 years. Under the sentencing guidelines, Ulbricht will almost undoubtedly spend most if not all of the rest of his life in federal prison. He isn't trying to "milk his fame some more" - he is simply fighting for his life. He has nothing to lose by grasping at straws and exhausting all of his post-conviction options, so I don't fault him for trying.
  • simplicio 12y ago
    Ulbricht seems likely to do a lot more time than Mitnick ever did. By the time he gets out, I doubt most people will remember who he was.
    • chisleu 12y ago
      It depends. I see him as a freedom fighter on the front lines. I will always remember his sacrifices. I guess it depends on your world view.
      • Touche 12y ago
        He wasn't fighting for the freedom of those people he put hits out on.
        • strathmeyer 12y ago
          Well, that's not very good trolling.
        • chisleu 12y ago
          No, but they were threatening his life...
          • nemo 12y ago
            They were threatening his business, not his life.
            • chisleu 12y ago
              Threatening to turn his information over to the feds = threatening his life. Do I need to remind you that he is sitting in a rape room right now and will be for 30 years?
              • FireBeyond 12y ago
                "Sitting in a rape room" - careful, your bias is showing.
• rayiner 12y ago
  Post-trial motions are a standard part of trial practice. For example, a lawyer might argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion.
  • 300bps 12y ago
    I'm not at all surprised about post-trial motions. What surprises me is attempting to introduce "fresh evidence" (as it is called in the article) in a post-trial motion immediately after their client is convicted. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. What you're saying is accurate but it's not the point. They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence. Source: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources... The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial’s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • downandout 12y ago
      >" They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence. You are confusing an appeal with a motion for a new trial. New evidence cannot be heard by any federal appellate court. However, a motion for a new trial (which is what they filed here) is filed with the district court that heard the case, and can include new evidence as a basis for the motion. Were this not possible, all of those people you hear about that are freed based on new DNA evidence, witnesses that admit to lying after trial, etc. would simply rot in prison. In fact, new evidence is one of the most common reasons for requesting a new trial.
• hluska 12y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I read the filing and none of this seems related to his guilt or innocence. Rather, it seems to argue that law enforcement violated his rights and that prosecution evidence should not have been admitted.
  • spacehome 12y ago
    That's related to guilt in the American system. Evidence obtained illegally can't be used to convict. This is also why parallel construction wrong - it illegally routes around this concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree