In sentencing, prosecutors submitted a number of comments alluding to Ulbricht's alleged but not proven in trial murder for hire plots. The assumed motive for these alleged murder plots was the actual theft of bitcoins which we now learn was perpetrated by government agents and witnesses against Ulbricht.
There were multiple criminal cases filed against Ulbricht by separate jurisdictions for wholly separate crimes. Force was involved in only a single criminal case (the alleged murder-for-hires), and that case was dropped when Force and another investigator in that case were arrested.
I think this is also somewhat inaccurate, as Ulbricht was charged for the murder-for-hire scheme in the indictment that ultimately convicted him. There is a very popular misconception that he wasn't convicted for the hit-man scheme, but he was; it just wasn't a murder charge.
Nope, you're completely wrong. It's not a misconception that Ulbricht wasn't convicted for the hit-man scheme because that wasn't part of the New York indictment. A person is "charged" with "counts" of specific crimes. The murder-for-hire is mentioned only as an alleged overt act in pursuance of a Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy count with which Ulbricht is charged.
Someone else has already provided the indictment in the New York court case. http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Nowhere in the New York indictment is Ulbricht charged with attempted murder or murder-for-hire.
The murder-for-hire charge was part of a Maryland court case in which Force and the other convicted investigator participated and which was subsequently dropped because of their malfeasance. See Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment. https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238....
Other commenters have already pointed out your error. Don't compound it by trying to argue legal semantics you clearly don't understand.
I have no idea why you think a citation to the Maryland case involving Force is some kind of mic drop. What part of this analysis of the New York case that I wrote a month ago do you disagree with? Can you be as specific as possible? You've identified yourself in the past as a criminal defense lawyer (I am not a lawyer), so you should have no trouble knocking it down.
I only know about the one case. Care to fill us in?
>Force was involved in only a single criminal case (the alleged murder-for-hires), and that case was dropped when Force and another investigator in that case were arrested.
>>In sentencing, prosecutors submitted a number of comments alluding to Ulbricht's alleged but not proven in trial murder for hire plots. The assumed motive for these alleged murder plots was the actual theft of bitcoins which we now learn was perpetrated by government agents and witnesses against Ulbricht.
No, I don't believe it is of much consequence, since the evidence that convicted Ulbricht was not derived from Force's investigation.
Again: Ulbricht used full-disk encryption and nothing else to protect his data (OPSEC lesson: don't do that), and was captured with his laptop unlocked. There was a glittering dragon hoard treasure trove of evidence on that thing. It's practically the case that everything he was charged for, he confessed --- in detail --- to his journal about. His journal! The case was over as soon as they imaged the laptop.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I really can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Ulbricht was indeed indicted for conspiring to hire a murder, in the case in which he was convicted; he was convicted of conspiring to hire a murder, among other things. The defense failed to rebut the alleged facts.
>Ulbricht was indeed indicted for conspiring to hire a murder, in the case in which he was convicted
There is no need for you to repeat that statement again without showing me where in the indictment document Ulbricht is actually indicted with a crime entitled "murder-for-hire". I don't see it. I've given you a link to a copy of the indictment for USA v. Ulbricht, Case No. 1:14-cr-00068-KBF, New York Southern District Court
And I've asked you to point out where in the document the indictment for "murder-for-hire"; I certainly could've missed it and I wouldn't mind clearing it up.
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.
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.
