U.S. Attorney Moves to Dismiss Murder-For-Hire Charges Against Ross Ulbricht(ccn.com)
ccn.com
U.S. Attorney Moves to Dismiss Murder-For-Hire Charges Against Ross Ulbricht
https://www.ccn.com/u-s-attorney-moves-to-dismiss-murder-for-hire-charges-against-ross-ulbricht/amp/
99 comments
Wouldn‘t the Second Circuit have already found a way, a procedural technicality or whatever, if they felt the sentence was „beyond the pale“?
They did confirm the judgement, right?
They did confirm the judgement, right?
You probably mean "affirm", which is lawyerese for confirm.
No, circuit courts limit themselves to what your appellate counsel brings, and strictly limits what you can bring up by limiting the amount of time at argument to 30 minutes or less. That translates to, at most, 2 issues, and I'm sure Mr. Ulbricht can point to over 200 at this point (2255's have a page limit, and you can move for extra pages, but you are pretty much stuck filing a 2255 only once).
Further, the original appellate process only considers matters of law (was XYZ a crime) and not matters of fact (witness alleging XYZ was also convicted for stealing Ross' bitcoins), so the juiciest stuff was barred until now.
Further, the panel of circuit judges that originally affirmed things can differ markedly with the judges who'll grant the certificate of appealability and/or consider the 2255 petition.
No, circuit courts limit themselves to what your appellate counsel brings, and strictly limits what you can bring up by limiting the amount of time at argument to 30 minutes or less. That translates to, at most, 2 issues, and I'm sure Mr. Ulbricht can point to over 200 at this point (2255's have a page limit, and you can move for extra pages, but you are pretty much stuck filing a 2255 only once).
Further, the original appellate process only considers matters of law (was XYZ a crime) and not matters of fact (witness alleging XYZ was also convicted for stealing Ross' bitcoins), so the juiciest stuff was barred until now.
Further, the panel of circuit judges that originally affirmed things can differ markedly with the judges who'll grant the certificate of appealability and/or consider the 2255 petition.
What two issues (of the 200 you mentioned) do you expect his council to argue? Why do you anticipate he will win?
Let me clear up the confusion. The original appeal is highly limited to at most two issues, and strictly matters of law.
The 2255 is wide open. You're limited by the number of pages (and the realization that if the first, say, 10 claims you bring up fail, maybe it wasn't likely to make a difference if you file any more).
Mention of counsel is funny, because 2/3 of 2255 issues tend to revolve around "ineffective assistance of counsel" (IAC). As such, you generally have to get a different lawyer or do it yourself, since no lawyer will accuse himself of doing a bad job with a straight face.
IAC may include anything from the attorney forgetting to bring up something important, to declaring the defendant guilty in open court, to falling asleep at trial. It generally has to be something really really unprofessional, and the defendant had to have suffered "prejudice". In other words, if you were, based on the mountain of evidence, going to be found guilty, whether or not (for example) your attorney slept with your wife, you suffered no prejudice and the verdict and sentence stand.
I'm sure in that pile of 2255 complaints will be the matter that the investigating officers and leading state witnesses (Carl Mark Force IV, FBI, and Shaun Bridges, Secret Service) committed perjury and theft and this prejudiced Ulbricht's right to a fair trial.
There will probably also be matter about unlawful search and seizure by the feds using hacking tools, etc.
I have a feeling the most fascinating stuff will be unknown to the public thus far.
The 2255 is wide open. You're limited by the number of pages (and the realization that if the first, say, 10 claims you bring up fail, maybe it wasn't likely to make a difference if you file any more).
Mention of counsel is funny, because 2/3 of 2255 issues tend to revolve around "ineffective assistance of counsel" (IAC). As such, you generally have to get a different lawyer or do it yourself, since no lawyer will accuse himself of doing a bad job with a straight face.
IAC may include anything from the attorney forgetting to bring up something important, to declaring the defendant guilty in open court, to falling asleep at trial. It generally has to be something really really unprofessional, and the defendant had to have suffered "prejudice". In other words, if you were, based on the mountain of evidence, going to be found guilty, whether or not (for example) your attorney slept with your wife, you suffered no prejudice and the verdict and sentence stand.
I'm sure in that pile of 2255 complaints will be the matter that the investigating officers and leading state witnesses (Carl Mark Force IV, FBI, and Shaun Bridges, Secret Service) committed perjury and theft and this prejudiced Ulbricht's right to a fair trial.
There will probably also be matter about unlawful search and seizure by the feds using hacking tools, etc.
I have a feeling the most fascinating stuff will be unknown to the public thus far.
[deleted]
As always, worth remembering that the "murder for hire" scheme was a predicate in the conspiracy charge Ulbricht faced†; it was introduced at trial, Ulbricht was formally accused of it, and his defense had an obligation to refute it. People on message boards tend to believe that Ulbricht was never confronted with an actual charge that he tried to have someone killed, but was merely smeared with it during sentence. That is not the case.
The fact that Ulbricht has a locked-in life sentence on a charge that involved the murder-for-hire scheme makes a separate murder prosecution pointless. Had he actually succeeded in his plan to have someone killed, the trial would serve a purpose (for the family of the victim, at least). But he didn't.
Source: you can just read the indictment for the case he lost, which discusses the murder-for-hire scheme directly.
The fact that Ulbricht has a locked-in life sentence on a charge that involved the murder-for-hire scheme makes a separate murder prosecution pointless. Had he actually succeeded in his plan to have someone killed, the trial would serve a purpose (for the family of the victim, at least). But he didn't.
Source: you can just read the indictment for the case he lost, which discusses the murder-for-hire scheme directly.
In the US court system, a defendant is not required to refute a charge--it is the obligation of the prosecution to prove all of the elements of a given charge.
However, because conspiracy is a separate crime, it can in some cases survive the voiding of the underlying crime, i.e., in this case the purported attempted murder.
However, because conspiracy is a separate crime, it can in some cases survive the voiding of the underlying crime, i.e., in this case the purported attempted murder.
Evidence for the charge was presented in the indictment and, I believe, at trial. The defense failed to address it. Obviously, the defense can do so because they think the evidence is prima facie unconvincing; the defense isn't obligated to overtly speak directly to it (see today's Manafort trial, in which the defense just rested without bringing a case, and the Popehat thread about why that's common in criminal cases). But we see how that worked out for Ulbricht: he was convicted and got a life sentence.
We're talking about 2 different things.
The Defendant is never required to disprove a criminal charge, or any factor of a criminal charge, which is what I'm saying.
However, once the prosecution has provided prima facie evidence of each factor of a criminal charge, it is generally advisable to attack the credibility/reliability of the evidence supporting that factor. Which is what you're saying. It isn't necessary for a defendant to present a defense, and in many cases defendants don't bother, since they never actually had a defense. They were simply hoping the prosecution would fail to prove its case to the jury.
The Defendant is never required to disprove a criminal charge, or any factor of a criminal charge, which is what I'm saying.
However, once the prosecution has provided prima facie evidence of each factor of a criminal charge, it is generally advisable to attack the credibility/reliability of the evidence supporting that factor. Which is what you're saying. It isn't necessary for a defendant to present a defense, and in many cases defendants don't bother, since they never actually had a defense. They were simply hoping the prosecution would fail to prove its case to the jury.
I agree that we are talking about two different things.
After reading American Kingpin I get that Ulbricht did a lot of bad things, broke many laws, and should be punished. Yet at the same time the length of his sentence feels more like government retribution than punishment. The government piled on and I feel there's a strange parallel to be drawn between Mr. Ulbricht and Kevin Mitnick's abuse by the government. I hope his sentence is severely reduced and he gets a chance at rehabilitation and redemption.
...because his appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, and he’ll be unable to avoid serving the rest of his life in prison, so a conviction would serve no purpose.
It probably also has a lot to do with the corruption scandal with Bridges, Force, and possibly even more dirty cops - which is why the other set of murder-for-hire charges in NY were dropped in 2014 before the trial...
It would be a prosecutor's nightmare to try a case where you have several of the principal investigators stealing funds, money-laundering, tampering with witnesses, selling internal info to the suspect, and who knows what else (we still don't know who scammed Ulbricht for the other hits, and Variety Jones has claimed that at least one more dirty cop is still on the loose). And let's not forget that FBI agent Tarbell, who 'found' the SR1 server in Iceland, beat a very hasty retreat to the private sector after what should've been a career-defining triumph, and no one wants to discuss exactly what bug supposedly spat out the IP address... I once asked a pair of FBI agents what was up with Tarbell leaving so fast, and they looked uncomfortable and didn't reply. (This is part of why Ulbricht's defense team's decision to not claim the Iceland server is widely regarded as a trial-losing mistake.)
Not only would there be little point, but any trial would likely be hugely embarrassing and discovery reveal things that the FBI and IRS and DEA would very much prefer be forgotten.
It would be a prosecutor's nightmare to try a case where you have several of the principal investigators stealing funds, money-laundering, tampering with witnesses, selling internal info to the suspect, and who knows what else (we still don't know who scammed Ulbricht for the other hits, and Variety Jones has claimed that at least one more dirty cop is still on the loose). And let's not forget that FBI agent Tarbell, who 'found' the SR1 server in Iceland, beat a very hasty retreat to the private sector after what should've been a career-defining triumph, and no one wants to discuss exactly what bug supposedly spat out the IP address... I once asked a pair of FBI agents what was up with Tarbell leaving so fast, and they looked uncomfortable and didn't reply. (This is part of why Ulbricht's defense team's decision to not claim the Iceland server is widely regarded as a trial-losing mistake.)
Not only would there be little point, but any trial would likely be hugely embarrassing and discovery reveal things that the FBI and IRS and DEA would very much prefer be forgotten.
> no one wants to discuss exactly what bug supposedly spat out the IP address
I haven't really followed this case too closely, so what exactly are you hinting at here? That the government possibly used NSA / national-security-level exploits to figure out who DPR was? That there was some level of parallel construction / evidence laundering?
I haven't really followed this case too closely, so what exactly are you hinting at here? That the government possibly used NSA / national-security-level exploits to figure out who DPR was? That there was some level of parallel construction / evidence laundering?
The DEA does use parallel-construction, and the FBI does recruit computer security researchers for attacks (the CMU CERT attack on SR2) and hand-me-down NSA exploits (and against Tor specifically), so neither of those is remotely far-fetched. And SR1 was a priority target.
We may never know what really happened; the whole Bridges/Force corruption thing, for example, is so wild no one could have dreamed it up.
However, from the descriptions like Nick Bilton's article/book puffpiece, I think it's somewhat likely (and more probable than NSA tech) that Tarbell did some unauthorized (and likely illegal) personal hacking and that's the kernel of truth behind his BS 'I was just typing in some random stuff and the server spat out an IP address at me!' story - SR1 was not very securely coded. Had this come out, it would've led to some serious evidence-tainting problems for the prosecutors because it affects everything downstream: the Iceland server, the SF IP address, the Pennsylvania backups, and finally Ross's unencrypted laptop in SF.
We may never know what really happened; the whole Bridges/Force corruption thing, for example, is so wild no one could have dreamed it up.
However, from the descriptions like Nick Bilton's article/book puffpiece, I think it's somewhat likely (and more probable than NSA tech) that Tarbell did some unauthorized (and likely illegal) personal hacking and that's the kernel of truth behind his BS 'I was just typing in some random stuff and the server spat out an IP address at me!' story - SR1 was not very securely coded. Had this come out, it would've led to some serious evidence-tainting problems for the prosecutors because it affects everything downstream: the Iceland server, the SF IP address, the Pennsylvania backups, and finally Ross's unencrypted laptop in SF.
Parrallel re construction should be out lawed. How the heck do you defend against a lie after the fact. You could never challenge using the fruits of a poisonous tree method. Dirty dirty federal government move.
> Parrallel re construction should be out lawed.
Parallel construction is, by definition, illegal (it's covering up illegal behavior in order to introduce evidence in court illegally). The trouble is that it's difficult to identify and prove.
Parallel construction is, by definition, illegal (it's covering up illegal behavior in order to introduce evidence in court illegally). The trouble is that it's difficult to identify and prove.
Yet this is exactly what they preach... smh
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/03/dea-paral...
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/03/dea-paral...
See this post/discussion about the parallel construction hypothesis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8404511
Where can one go to read more about this case? It sounds like there are a lot of fascinating subplots here.
"Sunk: How Ross Ulbricht ended up in prison for life" [0] on Ars Technica is one option.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/sunk-how-ross-ul...
(edited because apparently hyperlinks don't work the way I thought they would)
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/sunk-how-ross-ul...
(edited because apparently hyperlinks don't work the way I thought they would)
What a strange case. It would seem that you can be prosecuted for your political beliefs, and this case sets the precedent for it.
No it doesn't. Running a drug trafficking site is not a "political belief". Had he been campaigning for the legalization of drugs, and was arrested doing that, you'd have a point.
[deleted]
It's also possible the case had no merit to begin with.
I mean, didn't he end up paying a DEA agent to murder someone?
Yes, he did.
That's what he was accused of, but since he never got a trial on that matter why do you assume it happened?
No, he was tried on that matter: the murder-for-hire scheme was a predicate for the conspiracy charge he was eventually convicted for.
Can't tell if this is some kind of recursive sarcasm, but this is literally the point being debated. Are you even paying attention??
There there was a lot of police impropriety surrounding it does not mean the case has no merit.
It is quite possible for:
1. Billy to commit a crime.
2. The police to completely bungle their investigation.
3. Billy to be found not guilty, because of #2.
As a result:
The case against Billy has merit, because he actually did it (See #1). Also, he did it (See #1). But he should be found not guilty (See #2).
I mean, does anyone seriously dispute that Ross paid an undercover agent to murder someone? What's under dispute is whether or not the police behaved properly in this case (Which can sometimes be enough to throw out a conviction).
It is quite possible for:
1. Billy to commit a crime.
2. The police to completely bungle their investigation.
3. Billy to be found not guilty, because of #2.
As a result:
The case against Billy has merit, because he actually did it (See #1). Also, he did it (See #1). But he should be found not guilty (See #2).
I mean, does anyone seriously dispute that Ross paid an undercover agent to murder someone? What's under dispute is whether or not the police behaved properly in this case (Which can sometimes be enough to throw out a conviction).
> does anyone seriously dispute that Ross paid an undercover agent to murder someone
Yes at least one person does, the defendant.
And given that the investigating officers were -- literally -- criminals, it's not a stretch to say there's the possibility of reasonable doubt here. Someone willing to fabricate stories about stolen bitcoins could be considered likely to have fabricated other things too.
Yes at least one person does, the defendant.
And given that the investigating officers were -- literally -- criminals, it's not a stretch to say there's the possibility of reasonable doubt here. Someone willing to fabricate stories about stolen bitcoins could be considered likely to have fabricated other things too.
Ross doesn't deny sending the messages where he ordered the hit.
He has a marvelous, fantastic story for why he sent them, where he claims that he knew for a certainty that he was not actually ordering a 'real' hit, yet still wired hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin to the assassin. It's about as plausible as 'This pound of cocaine, along with a stolen 9mm handgun fell from the sky, right into my person, your honor, I swear they aren't mine.'
There's possibility, with all the police misconduct, for him to claim something similar to the 'fruit of the poisoned tree', which might hypothetically. get the conviction thrown out. But its pretty much a certainty that he ran a drug marketplace, and tried to assassinate someone.
He has a marvelous, fantastic story for why he sent them, where he claims that he knew for a certainty that he was not actually ordering a 'real' hit, yet still wired hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin to the assassin. It's about as plausible as 'This pound of cocaine, along with a stolen 9mm handgun fell from the sky, right into my person, your honor, I swear they aren't mine.'
There's possibility, with all the police misconduct, for him to claim something similar to the 'fruit of the poisoned tree', which might hypothetically. get the conviction thrown out. But its pretty much a certainty that he ran a drug marketplace, and tried to assassinate someone.
No sarcasm, just wondering how you get to "no merit" from "paying someone to kill someone else" for a murder-for-hire charge...
So it is a double life sentence for nonviolent crimes. Isn’t it a little ridiculous?
Yes. This was a high-profile case with lots of public visibility. Asking for a huge sentence supported the political and career ambitions of prosecutors involved with the case.
The prosecutors did not ask for what they thought was a fair sentence for the alleged crimes. Instead they asked for the biggest sentence they thought they could attain.
The prosecutors did not ask for what they thought was a fair sentence for the alleged crimes. Instead they asked for the biggest sentence they thought they could attain.
Do you know what caused the US attorney to move to dismiss? Public comment?
I'm quite ignorant of our (US) legal system, but the article seemed to say that it was dropped because the Supreme Court confirmed Ulbricht's life-sentence for the drug charges. US Attorney figured he wasn't going anywhere anyway, I'm guessing.
Even though he's convicted and incarcerated on other charges, Ross still has a right to a speedy trial, and charges have to be brought within a statute of limitations (five years in most cases, and although there are exceptions for murder and certain other crimes, I don't believe there was an actual murder here).
My guess is the clock ran out and the USAO decided their scare piece fulfilled its intended purpose. Always easier to get a conviction and maximum sentence against somebody when you can insinuate they did something even worse.
My guess is the clock ran out and the USAO decided their scare piece fulfilled its intended purpose. Always easier to get a conviction and maximum sentence against somebody when you can insinuate they did something even worse.
The speedy trial right and the statute of limitations are two very separate things.
The statute of limitations is satisfied if charges are filed before the SOL expires.
The speedy trial right provides that a defendant must be brought to trial within X days of charges being filed, unless the defendant voluntarily waives that right. (In CA, it was 60 days when I still practiced crimlaw. Federal law provides for 70 days, but no trial can begin within 30 days of arraignment.)
Most defendants waive the speedy trial right for some reason, usually because their attorneys convince it's a good idea. (It never is. You never want the prosecution to have more time to investigate.)
The statute of limitations is satisfied if charges are filed before the SOL expires.
The speedy trial right provides that a defendant must be brought to trial within X days of charges being filed, unless the defendant voluntarily waives that right. (In CA, it was 60 days when I still practiced crimlaw. Federal law provides for 70 days, but no trial can begin within 30 days of arraignment.)
Most defendants waive the speedy trial right for some reason, usually because their attorneys convince it's a good idea. (It never is. You never want the prosecution to have more time to investigate.)
They're not as separate as many seem to think.
The reason lawyers tend to ignore the speedy trial act is a practical one. They object, the judge dismisses the charges without prejudice, and the prosecution refiles the charges (or substantially similar ones). Speedy trial clock reset to zero. Everybody except the defendant shares a laugh.
In many cases (including mine), the prosecutor will of their own accord and with no apparent prompting, supersede their indictment with minimal changes, achieving much the same result. It's like hitting the snooze button on a case you want to procrastinate (or sweat/squeeze the defendant into a plea agreement).
This works great until the case is dismissed without prejudice and then the prosecution tries to refile past the statute of limitations. Whoops. Check, and mate. The only practical power of the speedy trial act.
The reason lawyers tend to ignore the speedy trial act is a practical one. They object, the judge dismisses the charges without prejudice, and the prosecution refiles the charges (or substantially similar ones). Speedy trial clock reset to zero. Everybody except the defendant shares a laugh.
In many cases (including mine), the prosecutor will of their own accord and with no apparent prompting, supersede their indictment with minimal changes, achieving much the same result. It's like hitting the snooze button on a case you want to procrastinate (or sweat/squeeze the defendant into a plea agreement).
This works great until the case is dismissed without prejudice and then the prosecution tries to refile past the statute of limitations. Whoops. Check, and mate. The only practical power of the speedy trial act.
I was a former public defender, guy.
If a judge dismisses charges, then the defendant goes free. Defendants are okay with that. Sure, it gives prosecutors time to file more charges (so long as the SOL hasn't expired), but they only get that one free bite. The second time they file, judges will only dismiss charges on prosecutor motion with prejudice.
In many cases (including mine), the prosecutor will of their own accord and with no apparent prompting, supersede their indictment with minimal changes, achieving much the same result. It's like hitting the snooze button on a case you want to procrastinate (or sweat/squeeze the defendant into a plea agreement).
It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on. The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right. The superseding indictment only extends that window by 70 days...for the new charges. And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once. After that, the prosecutors must show cause as to why they couldn't get things right the first time.
This works great until the case is dismissed without prejudice and then the prosecution tries to refile past the statute of limitations. Whoops. Check, and mate. The only practical power of the speedy trial act.
What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act.
If a judge dismisses charges, then the defendant goes free. Defendants are okay with that. Sure, it gives prosecutors time to file more charges (so long as the SOL hasn't expired), but they only get that one free bite. The second time they file, judges will only dismiss charges on prosecutor motion with prejudice.
In many cases (including mine), the prosecutor will of their own accord and with no apparent prompting, supersede their indictment with minimal changes, achieving much the same result. It's like hitting the snooze button on a case you want to procrastinate (or sweat/squeeze the defendant into a plea agreement).
It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on. The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right. The superseding indictment only extends that window by 70 days...for the new charges. And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once. After that, the prosecutors must show cause as to why they couldn't get things right the first time.
This works great until the case is dismissed without prejudice and then the prosecution tries to refile past the statute of limitations. Whoops. Check, and mate. The only practical power of the speedy trial act.
What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act.
I was a former public defender, guy.
Umm.. thank you for your service?
It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on.
Well, I'm on my fourth (or fifth? I've lost count), and statistics suggest there must have been a bad one in there somewhere. I think I have a firmer grip than a lot of people. Allow me to demonstrate:
The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right.
Judges don't keep a running tally of non-tolled days and poll counsel on whether they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. In my particular case, 1006 days passed between original indictment and trial, and while my counsel could have brought an STA/6th amendment motion to dismiss and didn't, I wouldn't quite characterize that as waiving.
And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once.
Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false.
What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act.
But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause.
Umm.. thank you for your service?
It sounds like you have a bad lawyer, but you're also not understanding what's going on.
Well, I'm on my fourth (or fifth? I've lost count), and statistics suggest there must have been a bad one in there somewhere. I think I have a firmer grip than a lot of people. Allow me to demonstrate:
The original charges must still be brought to trial within 70 days of the original indictment...unless you (through your lawyer) waived that right.
Judges don't keep a running tally of non-tolled days and poll counsel on whether they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. In my particular case, 1006 days passed between original indictment and trial, and while my counsel could have brought an STA/6th amendment motion to dismiss and didn't, I wouldn't quite characterize that as waiving.
And judges generally only approve superseding indictments once.
Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false.
What you just described was the SOL expiring. It had nothing to do with the speedy trial act.
But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause.
Judges don't keep a running tally of non-tolled days and poll counsel on whether they want to waive their right to a speedy trial.
You're right, the judges don't. The judge's law clerk(s) do, as should your own lawyer(s). However, please note that not bringing a speedy trial motion is the same thing as waiving that right. The speedy trial right is an asserted right, meaning that you have to actively pursue it. Courts simply don't have the capacity to grant it to everyone, especially since most people waive it anyway.
Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false.
Judges absolutely approve or reject superseding indictments once a defendant has been charged. Whether or not the prosecutor chooses to get a dozen superseding indictments before charging or arraigning a defendant is a very different thing.
But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause.
That's true, but that's not what you're describing. You originally described a prosecutor dismissing charges for some reason, but then not refiling charges before the SOL expires. If the speedy trial right was at issue, the prosecutor would simply ask the defense for a waiver, which the lawyer will usually grant unless there's a reason not to, i.e., client says no or the lawyer is aware the prosecutor has insufficient evidence but given time could acquire it. (The latter will never apply so close to an SOL expiring--if the prosecution doesn't have the evidence after 5/6/7 years, the difference of a few days or weeks won't matter.)
You're right, the judges don't. The judge's law clerk(s) do, as should your own lawyer(s). However, please note that not bringing a speedy trial motion is the same thing as waiving that right. The speedy trial right is an asserted right, meaning that you have to actively pursue it. Courts simply don't have the capacity to grant it to everyone, especially since most people waive it anyway.
Judges don't "approve" indictments on the federal level. Indictments (even superseding ones) come from grand juries. Judging by the number of 8th superseding, 9th superseding, and nth superseding (where n has 2 digits) indictments in a number of cases in the literature, this statement would appear to be provably false.
Judges absolutely approve or reject superseding indictments once a defendant has been charged. Whether or not the prosecutor chooses to get a dozen superseding indictments before charging or arraigning a defendant is a very different thing.
But without any cause to dismiss the case, you can be tried and convicted well after the SOL runs, provided you were charged prior. The STA provides the cause.
That's true, but that's not what you're describing. You originally described a prosecutor dismissing charges for some reason, but then not refiling charges before the SOL expires. If the speedy trial right was at issue, the prosecutor would simply ask the defense for a waiver, which the lawyer will usually grant unless there's a reason not to, i.e., client says no or the lawyer is aware the prosecutor has insufficient evidence but given time could acquire it. (The latter will never apply so close to an SOL expiring--if the prosecution doesn't have the evidence after 5/6/7 years, the difference of a few days or weeks won't matter.)
The headline and opening sentence are worded to try and fool you into thinking that it's an Attorney General (i.e., the state) initiating this motion; it's actually just some random lawyer.
You're confused. Attorneys General of the states don't matter, because this is a federal thing ("IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", as the motion says on top.).
And the top prosecutor in the federal system for a state is called... the "U.S. Attorney".
It's certainly not some random attorney who happens to hold U.S. citizenship.
And the top prosecutor in the federal system for a state is called... the "U.S. Attorney".
It's certainly not some random attorney who happens to hold U.S. citizenship.
I wouldn‘t call it nonviolent. He caused several deaths (and that they could/would/might have died otherwise without his involvement doesn‘t absolve him).
Not to speak of the murders he paid for, but that were thankfully stopped in the stage where it‘s still only an attempt.
Not to speak of the murders he paid for, but that were thankfully stopped in the stage where it‘s still only an attempt.
Sorry, how did he cause several deaths?
You can look up the articles and the HN commentary yourself. In short: he supplied drugs to people who then died of those drugs.
(Long version: he ran a platform where people sold the victims drugs, from which sales he financially profited). Victims who subsequently died.
I assume you think that they would have overdosed from other peoples' drugs anyway, but as I wrote, I don't accept that, so we can probably not discuss this productively.
(Long version: he ran a platform where people sold the victims drugs, from which sales he financially profited). Victims who subsequently died.
I assume you think that they would have overdosed from other peoples' drugs anyway, but as I wrote, I don't accept that, so we can probably not discuss this productively.
This is absurd. Does Walgreens "cause death" every time someone ODs on Tylenol? Or your local Ford dealer when someone gets in a car accident? Smoking killed 6.6X the number of people drugs did in 2017—do you think we should start arresting everyone who owns a 7/11?
There's a lot of people who call for jailing tobacco executives who peddled cigarettes despite knowing about the dangers. I don't agree with those folks, but it's not an "absurd" position to take.
So long as tobacco is product that is legal to sell, jailing the people who sell it would certainly be an absurd position.
To carry forth the analogy, if I sell a handgun to a known felon, and they kill someone, did I "cause death"?
Presumably illegal substances are illegal in part based on risk, so even participating in the transaction you're assuming that risk.
Presumably illegal substances are illegal in part based on risk, so even participating in the transaction you're assuming that risk.
I don't think this analogy works with this scenario. The person selling the gun to a felon is breaking the law but "causing death" would depend on if they knew that was the persons intent. Sort of like if you buy a gun legally and say to the person selling you the gun I plan on killing someone with it, they will refuse to sell it to you and will report you to the police.
I don't think most people intend or want their customers ODing on their product, but it understandably will happen with some given the power of the addiction.
Even still I think where this thread is going is reaching in some respects. Sure people died from the drugs that were sold on the silk road, but from my understanding they wern't sold by Ross directly. Sure it he was getting a profit for the use of the silk road basically being the ebay for illegal stuff, but that to me seems more like organized crime and being a kingpin of sorts.
I don't think most people intend or want their customers ODing on their product, but it understandably will happen with some given the power of the addiction.
Even still I think where this thread is going is reaching in some respects. Sure people died from the drugs that were sold on the silk road, but from my understanding they wern't sold by Ross directly. Sure it he was getting a profit for the use of the silk road basically being the ebay for illegal stuff, but that to me seems more like organized crime and being a kingpin of sorts.
You're talking about selling things that enable violent crimes against others, while the person you're responding to is taking about selling benign things with which one can only harm oneself. They seem categorically different.
I flat out do not by that "can only harm oneself" argument. The effects of addiction on those close to the addict are quite well documented.
I sell a gun to someone who has expressed to me interest in self harm. They commit suicide. Did I "cause death"?
You would be complicit fault is infinitely divisible.
Does fault need to divide, or can it apply severally?
The distinction is tools of force vs other.
If you knowingly sold a weapon to a felon that is not allowed to posses said weapon, then I would suggest you should be charged with aiding and abetting or even accessory after the fact. While not accusing of "causing death", a punishment fitting the crime should be expected.
> Presumably illegal substances are illegal in part based on risk
The key word here is "presumably".
The key word here is "presumably".
It's not the substance which actually matters, but that distributing outside of regulation means you're supporting abuse of that substance in the eyes of the law. You can legally sell morphine to hospitals, firearms to non-felons, or alcohol to adults (add five years for the US).
> (Long version: he ran a platform where people sold the victims drugs, from which sales he financially profited). Victims who subsequently died.
It's a stretch to say that he caused their deaths because a third party willingly sold them drugs on his platform that they then willingly ingested.
He was involved in their deaths, yes, but he did not cause them.
It's a stretch to say that he caused their deaths because a third party willingly sold them drugs on his platform that they then willingly ingested.
He was involved in their deaths, yes, but he did not cause them.
Generally, you're legally a cause of something if it couldn't have happened without your action. That others contributed, as well, doesn't absolve you.
(Otherwise the sellers would claim, that the marketplace is the real culpit, and they just sold some stuff)
There are certain limits to it, so that totally far-flung causations don't count, but this is not a close call.
(Otherwise the sellers would claim, that the marketplace is the real culpit, and they just sold some stuff)
There are certain limits to it, so that totally far-flung causations don't count, but this is not a close call.
> if it couldn't have happened without your action
People have been buying and OD'ing on opiates for centuries. They could easily have happened without SR.
People have been buying and OD'ing on opiates for centuries. They could easily have happened without SR.
Again, the law doesn't care about "could". As it shouldn't.
How would you ever convict a thief if "someone else could have stolen it, had the defendant not been there first" was a valid defense?
You need to look at the concrete situation and in that situation the drugs came via Silk Road.
How would you ever convict a thief if "someone else could have stolen it, had the defendant not been there first" was a valid defense?
You need to look at the concrete situation and in that situation the drugs came via Silk Road.
The thief analogy does not exactly hold. A better one would be having the thief steal an item by threatening the victim with a pocket knife bought an Amazon. Are the manufacturers of the pocket knife guilty? Is Amazon guilty as well?
Although since dying of a drug overdose does not (directly) harm third parties, it's closer to trying to convict the manufacturers/sellers of rope for cases of suicide by hanging.
Although since dying of a drug overdose does not (directly) harm third parties, it's closer to trying to convict the manufacturers/sellers of rope for cases of suicide by hanging.
There are some drugs which can kill you which only certain people can legally sell.
There are some drugs which can kill you which no one can legally sell.
There are millions of non-drug items someone can sell you which can kill you.
So I think it has nothing to do with whether people died from items sold on the marketplace, but rather that the marketplace as a whole was de facto illegal.
Contrast to OpenBazaar.
There are some drugs which can kill you which no one can legally sell.
There are millions of non-drug items someone can sell you which can kill you.
So I think it has nothing to do with whether people died from items sold on the marketplace, but rather that the marketplace as a whole was de facto illegal.
Contrast to OpenBazaar.
> you’re legally a cause of something if it couldn't have happened without your action.
> Again, the law doesn't care about "could".
Which is it?
> Again, the law doesn't care about "could".
Which is it?
They could have bought the drugs which killed them anywhere. Ulbrich didn’t even sell the drugs.
But he knowingly fostered the sale of controlled substances, which itself is a crime.
But he knowingly fostered the sale of controlled substances, which itself is a crime.
That argument only holds if he provided the only marketplace where it was possible to buy contraband drugs.
Every single customer could then and can still withdraw cash at an ATM, and then visit down the chain of "guy that knows a guy" until their non-narc bona fides are established, and the psuedoanonymous cash-for-drugs transaction occurs.
He's in prison for life because the War on Drugs principals needed to set up an example as deterrent, because their usual methods of investigation and interdiction were less effective at fighting obfuscated online services, and his was the most popular at the time. The judges went along with it, because they balanced the interests of the government against one guy who is almost definitely a sleazebag, and found that turning the negative PR from the apparent untouchability of Silk Road users into a win by shutting down the system, seizing the Bitcoin, and railroading the operator was fine. Even if they got reversed a few years later, after it was mostly out of the news, that was still an acceptable result. The claim that he tried to hire a hitman for contract murder definitely put a thumb on that balancing test. Without it, you're just tossing someone in prison for starting up a better Craigslist.
From what I know about the case, the prosecution was probably more influenced by politics than justice. If he were market-making for insider trading tips and discreet temporary matchmaking services, instead of drugs, stolen property, prostitution, and murders, he'd still be in business and richer than Croesus. They nailed him with a pseudo-plausible argument and a pressing need to get online black markets out of the mainstream news. It's the same reason Pirate Bay keeps losing domain names, while lesser-known trackers never seem to get the same level of opposition. The first rule of your online black market is to not talk about your online black market. If it gets too popular, it becomes the enforcement target pour encourager les autres.
There's no way in Hell he'd merit a life sentence without the attempted murder claims. Silk Road wasn't intrinsically more criminal than Visa or Mastercard payment clearing services, aside from it not automatically banning merchant accounts suspected of engaging in certain lines of business that are illegal in most jurisdictions. Silk Road was making the War on Drugs actors look like chumps, so they made Dread Pirate Roberts their public enemy number one.
I don't think he deserves the sentence that he got, but I also don't think they're ever going to let him out, because he's back in the news the instant they turn him loose. It'd be nice to believe that the justice system was more about the justice than the system, but I just can't.
Every single customer could then and can still withdraw cash at an ATM, and then visit down the chain of "guy that knows a guy" until their non-narc bona fides are established, and the psuedoanonymous cash-for-drugs transaction occurs.
He's in prison for life because the War on Drugs principals needed to set up an example as deterrent, because their usual methods of investigation and interdiction were less effective at fighting obfuscated online services, and his was the most popular at the time. The judges went along with it, because they balanced the interests of the government against one guy who is almost definitely a sleazebag, and found that turning the negative PR from the apparent untouchability of Silk Road users into a win by shutting down the system, seizing the Bitcoin, and railroading the operator was fine. Even if they got reversed a few years later, after it was mostly out of the news, that was still an acceptable result. The claim that he tried to hire a hitman for contract murder definitely put a thumb on that balancing test. Without it, you're just tossing someone in prison for starting up a better Craigslist.
From what I know about the case, the prosecution was probably more influenced by politics than justice. If he were market-making for insider trading tips and discreet temporary matchmaking services, instead of drugs, stolen property, prostitution, and murders, he'd still be in business and richer than Croesus. They nailed him with a pseudo-plausible argument and a pressing need to get online black markets out of the mainstream news. It's the same reason Pirate Bay keeps losing domain names, while lesser-known trackers never seem to get the same level of opposition. The first rule of your online black market is to not talk about your online black market. If it gets too popular, it becomes the enforcement target pour encourager les autres.
There's no way in Hell he'd merit a life sentence without the attempted murder claims. Silk Road wasn't intrinsically more criminal than Visa or Mastercard payment clearing services, aside from it not automatically banning merchant accounts suspected of engaging in certain lines of business that are illegal in most jurisdictions. Silk Road was making the War on Drugs actors look like chumps, so they made Dread Pirate Roberts their public enemy number one.
I don't think he deserves the sentence that he got, but I also don't think they're ever going to let him out, because he's back in the news the instant they turn him loose. It'd be nice to believe that the justice system was more about the justice than the system, but I just can't.
If you drive a "getaway" car in a crime where a death occurred, by most state laws, you will be charged with murder.
Felony murder is a broadly shitty law that has tons of terrible consequences. But even so, the idea that it extends to drug dealers whose customers have ODs is absurd.
Not a great example, because that is law very specifically written to get around this (which many consider a bad law for that reason, if not others). In other words, without the very specific felony murder legislation(s), your getaway car driver would not be accountable for the murder for the very reasons quoted here.
If you are interested in constructive discussion, it really doesn't help to just change commonly understood terminology without calling it out explicitly. The selling of drugs is considered a non-violent crime, regardless of how you feel about it.
It is of course an eminently reasonable thing to contend that some non-violent crime can have as much or more on the lives on its victims than violent crime. That's a different conversation though, than "we should change the classification of this act".
It is of course an eminently reasonable thing to contend that some non-violent crime can have as much or more on the lives on its victims than violent crime. That's a different conversation though, than "we should change the classification of this act".
What definition of supply are we using in this context? Sorry I'm not familiar with the intricacies of English colloquialisms and the divergent nuances of how those colloquialisms are used in the various parallel legal systems in the United States.
Also, what distinction do other market places use to avoid any prosecution, a terms of use agreement?
Also, what distinction do other market places use to avoid any prosecution, a terms of use agreement?
How many lives did he save by directing people away from violent street level dealers?
[deleted]
Would you be okay with it if Silk Road only sold psychedelics and euphoriants?
I would not call being a drug kingpin a nonviolent crime.
For the sake of a debate, why wouldn't you? (just sticking to drug kingpin and not including the murder for hire stuff...)
I would not skip that stuff, because that inevitably comes into it.
Murder for hire charges were dismissed.
Cool. That doesn't change things one bit; he still tried to have someone killed because he thought they were a threat to his empire. He is no freedom fighter, he is no crusader, he is a common drug dealer.
Because he's already serving consecutive life sentences and the prosecutor sees no state interest in pursuing a conviction when the defendant is already going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
Somewhat related, if you use the BOP inmate locator, he's doing max security time at a place with total communication control where the most violent and high risk inmates are sent in order to earn back rights to re-enter gen population. Average time spent there is 2 yrs.
I wonder if the case would have played out differently if Silk Road hadn't coincided with the rise of synthetic drugs.
Roughly 25% of all opioid overdoses in the US are from government prescribed Methadone, which is essentially synthetic heroin.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o...
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o...
Your statistic is not apparent in the linked information.
You're right, and the actual statistic is slightly different: "Despite this decline, however, methadone continues to account for nearly one in four prescription opioid-related deaths", https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6612a2.htm That is, not all opioid-related deaths, but prescription opioid-related deaths.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I had assumed that methadone was a safe alternative.
So, are there solid studies on how mortality compares per-capita, per-usage duration?
So, are there solid studies on how mortality compares per-capita, per-usage duration?
Methadone seems like a very dangerous drug to use outside of a controlled clinical setting. Terrifying that variance of dosage between users (~18x) is greater than theraputic index (12x) - meaning a dose that is ineffectively low for one person can be an overdose for a another.
"Methadone, an opioid analgesic, is used clinically in pain therapy as well as for substitution therapy in opioid addiction. It has a large interindividual variability in response and a narrow therapeutic index. Genetic polymorphisms in genes coding for methadone-metabolizing enzymes, transporter proteins (p-glycoprotein; P-gp), and mu-opioid receptors may explain part of the observed interindividual variation in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methadone. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and 2B6 have been identified as the main CYP isoforms involved in methadone metabolism. Methadone is a P-gp substrate, and, although there are inconsistent reports, ABCB1 genetic polymorphisms also contribute slightly to the interindividual variability of methadone kinetics and influence dose requirements. Genetic polymorphism is the cause of high interindividual variability of methadone blood concentrations for a given dose; for example, in order to obtain methadone plasma concentrations of 250 ng/mL, doses of racemic methadone as low as 55 mg/day or as high as 921 mg/day can be required in a 70-kg patient without any co-medication."
Li Y et al; Mol Diagn Ther 12 (2): 109-24 (2008)
"Methadone, an opioid analgesic, is used clinically in pain therapy as well as for substitution therapy in opioid addiction. It has a large interindividual variability in response and a narrow therapeutic index. Genetic polymorphisms in genes coding for methadone-metabolizing enzymes, transporter proteins (p-glycoprotein; P-gp), and mu-opioid receptors may explain part of the observed interindividual variation in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methadone. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and 2B6 have been identified as the main CYP isoforms involved in methadone metabolism. Methadone is a P-gp substrate, and, although there are inconsistent reports, ABCB1 genetic polymorphisms also contribute slightly to the interindividual variability of methadone kinetics and influence dose requirements. Genetic polymorphism is the cause of high interindividual variability of methadone blood concentrations for a given dose; for example, in order to obtain methadone plasma concentrations of 250 ng/mL, doses of racemic methadone as low as 55 mg/day or as high as 921 mg/day can be required in a 70-kg patient without any co-medication."
Li Y et al; Mol Diagn Ther 12 (2): 109-24 (2008)
> Perry said if the president does not act according to the resolution, the country needs to elect a Libertarian president in 2020 to get Ulbricht pardoned.
Yes. Clearly, that is the single-most important issue in the 2020 presidential election.
Yes. Clearly, that is the single-most important issue in the 2020 presidential election.
Next on tap for Mr. Ulbricht is the time-honored 2255 motion. Mr. Ulbricht now has until next June to file a civil lawsuit against the US government accusing it of violating his civil rights and seeking the verdict to be set aside or his sentence to be redetermined.
Why bring it up? 2255's are far more likely to succeed than a Supreme Court petition (the high court gets more petitions every year and yet considers fewer of them every year). Why now? The law says you can't bring up a 2255 until your last conventional appeal is exhausted.
Further, the 2255 gets to be considered by the very same trial judge who convicted and sentenced him. While that's a foregone conclusion, the second circuit will no doubt thereafter be asked to consider that petition, and might decide to either set Ulbricht free or reduce his time to maybe 10 years or time served, given how ridiculously beyond the pale the original sentence was.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ross considered the Supreme Court taking his case as being a snowball's chance in hell for the year-plus they've been sitting on the case, and has just been looking forward to finally filing his 2255.
Keep watching. It might be about to get good.