
Evidence the government will present in the Silk Road trial - jtreminio
http://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-ross-ulbricht-evidence-list/
======
at-fates-hands
This is all you need to know:

 _After federal agents put Ulbricht in handcuffs, they say they had his
machine still logged into Silk Road’s backend. He was working on user support
tickets when it happened._

And this little ditty:

 _Being allegedly signed into Silk Road as Dread Pirate Roberts, signed into
the Pidgin instant messenger app as Dread Pirate Roberts, and chatting with
Cirrus (there’s that name again) will all be important as the prosecution
attempts to solidify the links between Ulbricht and Dread Pirate Roberts._

GAME. SET. MATCH - government. Any hacker knows the last thing you want to
have happen is having the feds nab you while you're still logged into a
session. No encryption, no quick nuke command. This is the worst possible
scenario and the Feds caught him with his pants down.

~~~
junto
The only way he's going to get out of this is on a technicality, and that is
extremely unlikely. If he does get off they have the attempted murder charges.
He's looking pretty finished before the trial even starts.

Does this leak taint the jury?

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>> Does this leak taint the jury?

Nope.

The attorneys will ask potential jury members during the selection process if
they have been following the case in the papers. If the have, it may be
grounds for challenging a person to serve on the jury for this specific case
if they have a pre-determined view about Ulbricht's guilt or innocence.

The process is total chess match since both sides want to get people who are
sympathetic to their client or their cause. You should watch the movie
"Runaway Jury". In the meantime, here's a quick overview of the jury selection
process works:

[http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-are-
poten...](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-are-potential-
jurors-selected.html)

~~~
gpm
(Assuming this is a leak from the prosecution, which is not entirely clear)

Does this leak violate his right to a fair trial by fabricating grounds to
disqualify many potential jurors who would be sympathetic to him?

If it doesn't (which seems probable), would a severe enough leak of this kind
do the above?

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>> Does this leak violate his right to a fair trial by fabricating grounds to
disqualify many potential jurors who would be sympathetic to him?

Nope.

This is because during the jury selection process or "voir dire" each side has
a set number of "Peremptory Challenges" which either side doesn't need a
reason, they just say, "Jury Member #23 - Peremptory Challenge" and they will
be removed no questions asked.

The other kind of challenge is called "Challenge for Cause" of which either
side has an unlimited number of. This is where one side will challenge a juror
based on certain criteria like "implied bias" or "actual bias". At this point
the attorneys have to present their arguments to the judge and the judge makes
the final call on whether the juror will be dismissed or kept.

Once each side has exhausted both sets of challenges, you normally have enough
people to fill a jury with several alternates.

Because of how fair the process is it means the odds of getting people who are
sympathetic to him have an equal chance of getting on the jury, just as there
are of getting people who think hackers are the worst people on the planet.
This is why its such a chess match. Each side is trying to get enough jurors
to sympathize with their client, or the tip the balance in their favor based
on the questions they are allowed to ask in order to uncover any kind of bias,
or certain beliefs they have which would make an attorney think they will
likely support their client and see him as innocent.

>>> If it doesn't (which seems probable), would a severe enough leak of this
kind do the above?

Not until after the jury has been set.

Then the judge has to determine if there are enough leaks, and how damaging to
the trial they will be. The judge can also sequester a jury which means they
won't get any news of the case. Remember how awful the leaks were in the OJ
Simpson case? Judge Ito knew it was going to be a circus and sequestered the
jury right away. The paper the jurors got each day had all the OJ stories cut
out, and they weren't allowed to have a tv or magazines or anything which
would inform them about what was going on outside the courthouse with the
case. They just moved between the courthouse and their hotel where they were
staying the entire trial.

Of course you can also opt for a change of venue before a trial starts and
before jury selection to try and get a jury better suited for your client.
Some of the more high profile cases where this has happened:

1 - Rodney King Case. The appeals court granted a change in venue from LA to
the neighboring Simi Valley because of the "saturated media". Simi Valley just
happened to be an affluent white community. Is it any wonder the cops were
acquitted in record time??

2 - Oklahoma City Bombing - The attorneys for Timothy McVeigh successfully
argued for a change of venue because they felt there was a substantial
prejudice in OK City against McVeigh and felt there was no way he would get a
fair and impartial trial. It was granted because of the amount of coverage and
the stories in the press "demonized" both defendants. The venue was changed to
Denver Colorado. McVeigh was still found guilty despite the change of venue.

3 - Boston Marathon Bomber - A judge recently denied a change of venue to
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev saying the although the media attention was significant and
ongoing, but said Tsarnaev's defense attorney's failed to prove how it would
prejudice a fair and impartial jury. His trial is set to start in Sept. of
2015.

------
nemo
This is a pretty poor write up.

"The government's argument is that, as the site's alleged administrator, Dread
Pirate Roberts, anything that occurred there is his fault."

The government's argument is that Ulbricht, as the alleged administrator of
the site who was not only fully aware of what was happening, but was designing
and tailoring the site to facilitate illegal behavior, courting
dealers/criminals to the site, and profiting from the illegal activity he
facilitated, so he was engaged in a criminal conspiracy. "Anything that
occurred there is his fault" is a ludicrous misrepresentation of what an
accusation of criminal conspiracy means.

Also with that pile of evidence, esp. finding him logged in as the admin.
while arresting him, it's looking completely unlikely that Ulbricht would not
be found guilty, esp. with the completely inept/absurd responses by the
defense team.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
> but was designing and tailoring the site to facilitate illegal behavior

So if I have booths built at my nightclub that make it easier for dealers to
sell smack without others being able to see...

It's a crime to build furniture?

How is that sane?

We're at the point in the drug war where it's such an unspeakable and
incredible failure, that the government feels empowered to twist laws or even
make them up on the spot to get the rare PR victory (that will of course mean
no real world change).

It's sick.

~~~
ubernostrum
_So if I have booths built at my nightclub that make it easier for dealers to
sell smack without others being able to see..._

If you advertised it as "NoMoreNicksLeft's House of Smack Dealing, totally
anonymous drug-dealing booths, reasonable rates, guaranteed privacy and
security for all your drug-dealing needs"... then I think you can see where
the issue is.

And the issue with Silk Road is largely that it was explicitly designed to
cater to, and advertised as catering to, illegal activity.

~~~
smokeyj
> then I think you can see where the issue is.

Like Goldman Sachs owning a classified service that caters to sex traffickers?
Alright feds, let's see some heads roll.

