4 ms·

Is it possible for the court to revisit sentencing without a new trial? Because I am not at all impressed with prosecutors making use of the murder plot stuff i

Is it possible for the court to revisit sentencing without a new trial? Because I am not at all impressed with prosecutors making use of the murder plot stuff in sentencing after federal agents provoked the whole bit (not excusing Ulbricht's part in it, mind you). I think we're all a lot better off if the gov't is restrained from engaging in that kind of behavior, or taking advantage of this kind of gambit in any way.

tptacek 11y ago
That's not what happened! He was indicted for the murder-for-hire scheme.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  In Maryland, right? Different case. My google-fu fails me today, I don't remember and wasn't able to learn the disposition of that case.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    No! Not in a different case! In the case he was convicted for! Read the actual indictment. It's staggering to me how people can be so firmly convicted of things about this case that are refuted by even a casual reading of the primary sources. Come on. You not only repeated a meme that is contradicted by the most basic filing in the whole case, but constructed a whole narrative about specific prosecutorial misconduct based on that meme.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      This one? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&z=fdea5223 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Where/what is the statutory allegation? If you have a better copy that can be searched that would be appreciated.
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        Page 4 and 5. Overt acts. In furtherance of the conspiracy DPR solicited a murder for hire.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Count One, Overt Acts, section b.? I saw that, but I don't see any charge or indictment of "murder-for-hire" they just sort of threw it in there. The crime charged is Title 21 section 846 "Attempt and conspiracy". Title 21 United States Code is the Controlled Substances Act.
        tptacek 11y ago
        It's not "just thrown in there". It's an overt act supporting the conspiracy charge. It was introduced into the case in such a way that rebutting that claim would harm the prosecution's case --- which is not something they were required to do, given the enormous wealth of evidence they collected for all manner of other overt acts. It is literally the opposite of what you've been claiming it is. It was ventured by the prosecution as a formal piece of the case. The prosecution actually staked part of their case on it being true.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Okay, just so we're clear here, you're no longer claiming that Ulbricht was indicted with a charge of "murder-for-hire" or conspiring to hire a murder in USA v. Ulbricht, Case No. 1:14-cr-00068-KBF New York Southern District Court. Is that correct? >It is literally the opposite of what you've been claiming it is. I'm going to borrow a quote from you here: >Read the actual indictment. It's staggering to me how people can be so firmly convicted of things about this case that are refuted by even a casual reading of the primary sources. Come on. Indeed. Come on. You're mistaken. Stop digging. I hope this saves you further embarrassment. No need to thank me now. Good day. >It was ventured by the prosecution as a formal piece of the case. The prosecution actually staked part of their case on it being true. Sounds like a good argument for re-sentencing or maybe even a new trial; and also a good argument for prosecutors not to try to include such shabby evidence in their cases lest they risk an otherwise strong case.
- gamblor956 11y ago
  An indictment is a formal charge of a specific crime. The murder-for-hire plot was alleged in the New York indictment but only as an overt act in furtherance of the actual charge of Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    This would seem to me to be a meaningful rebuttal if Ulbricht hadn't been charged with an inchoate crime. But he was charged with conspiracy, a parameterized charge, and so the overt acts listed in the indictment do in fact matter. See, for instance, model jury instructions for the crime of "Conspiracy" with "overt acts". You're hung up on whether he's charged with murder, conspiracy, hacking, or whatever. I'm not. I don't care. The only thing I'm here to rebut is the pervasive meme that the Ulbricht murder-for-hire scheme was introduced informally by the prosecution in order to taint the jury and the judge. As you can plainly see, it wasn't: it was introduced in one of the most formal ways possible, in a manner that meant that its rebuttal at trial would have harmed the prosecution's case.
tedunangst 11y ago
Sentencing can be appealed, but you'd need to prove that excluding the evidence would result in a substantially different outcome. It seems unlikely the appeals court would agree that the life sentence was a result of this evidence alone.

tptacek 11y ago

That's not what happened! He was indicted for the murder-for-hire scheme.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
In Maryland, right? Different case. My google-fu fails me today, I don't remember and wasn't able to learn the disposition of that case.
- tptacek 11y ago
  No! Not in a different case! In the case he was convicted for! Read the actual indictment. It's staggering to me how people can be so firmly convicted of things about this case that are refuted by even a casual reading of the primary sources. Come on. You not only repeated a meme that is contradicted by the most basic filing in the whole case, but constructed a whole narrative about specific prosecutorial misconduct based on that meme.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    This one? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&z=fdea5223 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Where/what is the statutory allegation? If you have a better copy that can be searched that would be appreciated.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      Page 4 and 5. Overt acts. In furtherance of the conspiracy DPR solicited a murder for hire.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Count One, Overt Acts, section b.? I saw that, but I don't see any charge or indictment of "murder-for-hire" they just sort of threw it in there. The crime charged is Title 21 section 846 "Attempt and conspiracy". Title 21 United States Code is the Controlled Substances Act.
        tptacek 11y ago
        It's not "just thrown in there". It's an overt act supporting the conspiracy charge. It was introduced into the case in such a way that rebutting that claim would harm the prosecution's case --- which is not something they were required to do, given the enormous wealth of evidence they collected for all manner of other overt acts. It is literally the opposite of what you've been claiming it is. It was ventured by the prosecution as a formal piece of the case. The prosecution actually staked part of their case on it being true.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Okay, just so we're clear here, you're no longer claiming that Ulbricht was indicted with a charge of "murder-for-hire" or conspiring to hire a murder in USA v. Ulbricht, Case No. 1:14-cr-00068-KBF New York Southern District Court. Is that correct? >It is literally the opposite of what you've been claiming it is. I'm going to borrow a quote from you here: >Read the actual indictment. It's staggering to me how people can be so firmly convicted of things about this case that are refuted by even a casual reading of the primary sources. Come on. Indeed. Come on. You're mistaken. Stop digging. I hope this saves you further embarrassment. No need to thank me now. Good day. >It was ventured by the prosecution as a formal piece of the case. The prosecution actually staked part of their case on it being true. Sounds like a good argument for re-sentencing or maybe even a new trial; and also a good argument for prosecutors not to try to include such shabby evidence in their cases lest they risk an otherwise strong case.
gamblor956 11y ago
An indictment is a formal charge of a specific crime. The murder-for-hire plot was alleged in the New York indictment but only as an overt act in furtherance of the actual charge of Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy.
- tptacek 11y ago
  This would seem to me to be a meaningful rebuttal if Ulbricht hadn't been charged with an inchoate crime. But he was charged with conspiracy, a parameterized charge, and so the overt acts listed in the indictment do in fact matter. See, for instance, model jury instructions for the crime of "Conspiracy" with "overt acts". You're hung up on whether he's charged with murder, conspiracy, hacking, or whatever. I'm not. I don't care. The only thing I'm here to rebut is the pervasive meme that the Ulbricht murder-for-hire scheme was introduced informally by the prosecution in order to taint the jury and the judge. As you can plainly see, it wasn't: it was introduced in one of the most formal ways possible, in a manner that meant that its rebuttal at trial would have harmed the prosecution's case.

tedunangst 11y ago

Sentencing can be appealed, but you'd need to prove that excluding the evidence would result in a substantially different outcome. It seems unlikely the appeals court would agree that the life sentence was a result of this evidence alone.