ElcomSoft Jury Denied Access to full DMCA Text

ryochiji writes "Wired Online is reporting in this article that the jury in the ElcomSoft trial requested access 'to the full copy of the DMCA to assist in their decision-making' but was declined. 'Instead, [Judge] Whyte said he would answer specific questions jurors had about portions of the law they must consider in determining ElcomSoft's guilt or innocence.' I don't know if this is common practice in the court of law, but it somehow doesn't sound right ..."

Comments

It isn't that uncommon...

[leviramsey]

...it's generally done on the grounds that the law is so obtuse that the average juror wouldn't understand it...

Kind of makes you wonder why they don't simplify the law a little, don't it?

Re:It isn't that uncommon...

[dbrutus]

I find it amazing that a jury deciding a case has less access to the text of the law than any convicted felon in the United States of America.

If the judge is elected, he needs to be recalled, if he's appointed he needs to be impeached.

Re:It isn't that uncommon...

[qqtortqq]

Laws have to be written the way they are so they can be enforcable.

Exmaple 1) You can't have sex for money.

Example 2) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) performs, or offers or agrees to perform, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct; or
(2) fondles, or offers or agrees to fondle, the genitals of another person;
for money or other property commits prostitution, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has two (2) prior convictions under this section.


If you were arrested for the "can't have sex for money" law, and it wasn't spelled out like it is in example #2 (the indiana state prostitution law), any lawyer could get you off the hook. My client didn't have sex, just played with her stuff. My client never actually had sex with the prositiute, the cops broke it up before they could. My client didn't pay the hooker, only gave her a crack rock. My client etc...

If you take the time to read the laws, they really aren't all that confusing.

Re:juries don't usually consult the law directly

[Henry V .009]

Goddamn, but that is just dumb. Your first point is completely wrong, and your second point shows that you didn't even understand the topic.

Juries get to read large chunks of the law all of the time. They usually receive an interpretation of the statute from the judge as well. The two are not exclusive. If you ever sit on a criminal jury, you may find yourself making decisions as to which statute best fits the crime--all from the statutes as they are written.

Your second point claiming that "the jury is only allowed to decide the facts of the case within the law as it is written," is true (whatever the libertarians have to say about it) but beside the point. You're way off in left field with it. There is no evidence whatsoever that the jury is trying to decide whether or not the law is just--rather they want the text of it to see whether or not the DMCA applies in this case. That is a common request and rarely turned down.

In a few years after you graduate high school you will be called for jury duty (god help us) and find out what it is really like.

May be to keep the jury on topic

[0x0d0a]

It could be that (I'm not following the case) the Elcommsoft people are making a claim that the DMCA is a bogus piece of legislation or something. While I certainly feel for them, the job of the jury is not to evaluate the worth of the DMCA (I know someone's going to bring up jury nullification here, but that's insanely rare). The judge may be trying to prevent Elcommsoft from moving the emphasis from their guilt under the existing, passed-into-legislation law (which is what is at issue) to whether that law is just or constitutional or something (which is for the Supreme Court to decide, not the jury).

Go figure.

Re:that is unconstitutional (see FIJA.org)

[MacAndrew]

Facts are for the jury and law is for the judge; the judges are right about the rule (one would hope!); a constitutional right to invalidate laws does not exist for the jury. FIJA or whoever may disagree and may want to change and perhaps can, but it's not the law. What they propose is a reform, or that current law is wrong, which is their right but a fringe view. (I'm citing federal practice; individual states do have varying practice, as is their right according to their constitutions to evaluate state laws.)

IAAL FWIW. :)

Re:that is unconstitutional (see FIJA.org)

[TheGratefulNet]

so tell me, then - how is FIJA wrong? I assume you've seen their website?

according to fija, US juries have the right to judge unjust laws. not just FOLLOW the law blindly but actually OVERRIDE laws.

IANAL but it seems clear what fija is saying. are you of the view that fija is all wrong? or my understanding of fija is wrong? (fija is not a 'law' but a website that comments on some aspects of the law, from a jury-rights perspective).

what they say on their website sure sounds right to me (not that that means anything, legally). the checks and balances were put in to protect against unjust laws or cases where a specific instance of a 'crime' is deemed ok, given the circumstances. or, simply just to keep the government in check. the jury is the last stop for The People to have their say. it just makes sense that they'd have the ability to judge laws and not just blindly apply them.

And the average educated person?

[phorm]

...it's generally done on the grounds that the law is so obtuse that the average juror wouldn't understand it...

So if a jury can't understand it enough to render a decision... how is the average person supposed to be able to understand it enough to avoid infringing it?

Re:juries don't usually consult the law directly

[Twirlip of the Mists]

All that, mind you, is before the jury asks itself if it wants Russia applying its domestic laws in, say, Michigan.

I was right with you up to this point. This issue is deader than dead. The crime of which these folks are accused was committed on US soil; they were arrested on US soil; they are being tried on US soil. The fact that they're Russian citizens is irrelevant.

If you were to commit a crime in Russia, you would expect to be arrested by Russian police officers, tried in a Russian court, and, if convicted, sentenced to a Russian prison. This situation is no different.