
Judge: I won't reveal witnesses because Ulbricht could have them killed - butwhy
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/silk-road-judge-ulbricht-could-kill-witnesses
======
rayiner
Reading legal coverage in Wired is like reading technology coverage in People
magazine.

The witness list will be disclosed, a few days before the trial. In no
litigation does either side have an obligation to produce lists of witnesses
well ahead of time unless specifically ordered by a judge.

Disclosure of witness lists is not required by Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 16, which governs mandatory disclosures:
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16).
Local practice, including in SDNY where this trial is held, might hold it
customary to make such disclosures, but no specific number of days of advance
notice is usually required. It's useful to search "witness list" on that link
and read the committee notes on the rationale behind the rule.

A good, but somewhat old, article on the subject.
[http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=27...](http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2743&context=wmlr)

~~~
MCRed
Or technology coverage in Wired. And it has been that way since the first
issue- it's always been a People Magazine type magazine.

When I got my first copy, stumbled on it at a news stand in harvard square on
a trip to visit MIT, it was novel because at least it was talking about the
internet.

But from that first issue, it's never been written by people who understood or
gave a damn about technology.

~~~
davidgerard
The main function Wired magazine served early on was to give the writers of
the old BoingBoing magazine (years before the current website) a paying job.
So that justified its existence for quite a while.

------
Voloskaya
Genuine question: I didn't followed closely this case, and I'm quite surprised
to see so much people defending Ulbricht or the Silk Road on behalf of
internet freedom. Some people comparing him to kevin mitnick... I mean, ain't
we talking about someone who ran a website where you could illegally buy
drugs, guns and or even request an assination? Why should we be concerned by
his case?

~~~
clamprecht
Because he is on trial, which means he has not been found guilty.

~~~
tptacek
That's an obligation of the law, but not of public opinion.

~~~
bguthrie
The law doesn't do an especially good job of it either. Perhaps it would be
better were we all more observant of the principle than we tend to be; the
accused is not always guilty.

Edit: For context, this is what I had in mind: [https://medium.com/for-the-
love-of-podcast/serials-big-confe...](https://medium.com/for-the-love-of-
podcast/serials-big-confession-10611ff75c13)

~~~
tptacek
The same distinction is what allows us to express outrage in the Eric Garner
case.

~~~
tomp
Not really - the cop that killed Eric Garner wasn't even indicted/accused.

~~~
tptacek
By the logic I was responding to, it is inappropriate to be angry at the cop.
He's innocent until proven guilty. That's obviously not how public opinion
works.

------
lstyls
Whether or not you think Ulbrecht really was a full-on digital gangster,
assassinating enemies at will -- I sure don't -- I think we all can agree: it
does not bode well for your coming trial when the judge publicly declares you
a danger to the lives of witnesses.

~~~
butwhy
Why don't you think he was? I personally was all-for his cause (and everything
silk road stood for), but I think he's probably guilty of the murder thing and
they claim evidence to back it up.

Edit: Funny how I'm getting downvotes. Apparently it's soo controversial to
make my decision based on evidence. And something that'll he likely be
convicted for.

~~~
lstyls
The prosecution has every incentive to cast Ulbrecht in the worst light
possible before the trial begins. Because they're not actually at trial yet,
they can make claims that won't actually hold up to scrutiny in court. As
others have already pointed out, if he really did order people's murders,
wouldn't the prosecution indict him for it?

All that aside, it seems a big leap for Ulbrecht to make from online drug-deal
middleman to someone calling out hits on people. He's not Don Corleone or Avon
Barksdale, he's some tech kid with really poor judgement. I actually find the
government's claim that he tried to hire an undercover as a hitman completely
credible. It also seems to speak to the idea that he had no idea what he was
doing and was completely out of his element.

~~~
dietrichepp
> if he really did order people's murders, wouldn't the prosecution indict him
> for it?

No, that's a non sequitur.

For example, imagine that the prosecution knows that Alice killed Bob, but
only because they were illegally tapping Alice's phone lines and the evidence
would get thrown out. Or imagine that Alice is in the mafia, and your only
witness, Charlie, suddenly went missing.

> he's some tech kid with really poor judgement

History is littered with people who went from "poor judgement" to "murder". To
be clear, I'm not calling Ulbricht a murderer. I'm just not convinced that you
know him so well that you know what he will and won't do.

~~~
lstyls
I should clarify, I don't mean poor judgement in the "he's a good kid, he just
had poor judgement" sense. He might be a terrible person for all I know. Heck,
he probably is. And I wouldn't be surprised if he _wanted_ to murder people. I
meant it in the sense that I don't think he is _capable_ of finding someone
willing and able.

~~~
foldr
Surely that pretty much concedes that the prosecution are right. If he wants
to kill people then he does pose a significant threat to the witnesses.

------
diafygi
Is this common practice for other organized crime trials? When a Mafia don or
drug kingpin get prosecuted, do the witnesses remain secret?

~~~
burkaman
It must be somewhat common practice, because this is what the Witness
Protection Program is for, right? And that program was established under the
Organized Crime Control Act.

~~~
diafygi
With witness protection, I thought they still had the witness take the stand,
then put them into the program.

~~~
fastball
Yes, but it doesn't do much good if the gangster knows who ratted beforehand,
and has them killed.

So for Witness Protection, they have you under guard and hopefully under wraps
until trial, and then they give you a new identity.

------
downandout
This ruling likely doesn't matter that much, given that Ulbricht and his
attorneys surely know who the most important witnesses are, as he knows the
people he interacted with. It does, however, show that the judge is willing to
believe in the possibility that he's Pablo Escobar 2.0. That probably doesn't
bode well for his trial. Even though his guilt will ultimately be decided by a
jury, the judge's rulings on motions (such as the pending motion to keep
testimony about his attempted murders-for-hire out of the trial) can have a
huge impact on the verdict.

------
jbrooksuk
This sounds as ridiculous as when Kevin Mitnick wasn't allowed to use a phone
whilst incarcerated because it was rumoured he'd set of nuclear missiles by
whistling at certain frequencies.

Edit: Slightly tongue in cheek.

~~~
tptacek
It's clearly not _as_ ridiculous, as there was no basis whatsoever to believe
that Mitnick could do anything like that.

~~~
tinco
I get the idea that it's pretty certain that he actually couldn't, but at that
time I don't think you could be certain of anything he might be able to do.

Maybe not set of nuclear missiles, but destroying evidence perhaps? Or some
other scheme that would only require a simple digital initiation?

As I'm sure you are well aware there actually were hackers at the time who
taught themselves to whistle at 2600hz. Who knows if someone you have just
caught and otherwise know nothing about could do something similar?

------
tomjen3
Can a higher court overturn that decision?

Because if not, I hereby declare the entire trial a sham, a huge attack on his
constitutional rights, an insult to the idea of impartial justice and a return
to the Star Chamber.

------
tomp
Wow, this really looks like it's going to be a farce trial. I wonder in how
many other cases "the accused is dangerous - better keep witnesses secret"
rhetoric will be used to pervert justice. Especially if the "murder"
accusations can simply be made up!

