Pirate Bay Day 5 — Prosecution Tries To Sneak In Evidence

Hodejo1 writes "On the old Perry Mason TV shows, it was a common sight to see someone burst into the crowded courtroom at a dire moment and confess aloud that they, not the defendant, killed so-and-so. In reality, courts do not allow evidence to enter trial without a chance for the opposing council to view it and for a judge to rule on their admissibility. Yet, in the fifth day of the Pirate Bay trial, lawyers for the prosecution again tried to sneak in surprise evidence while questioning defendants. The judge put his foot down this time, telling lawyers for the state, 'If you have documents which you eventually plan to use, you need to hand them over now.' The prosecution continues to struggle in court. In one humorous moment, prosecutor Håkan Roswall tried to show how 'hip' he was with technology when he questioned defendant Peter Sunde. 'When did you meet [Gottfrid] for the first time IRL?' asked the Prosecutor. 'We do not use the expression IRL,' said Peter, 'We use AFK.' The defendants are not out of the woods yet. Lawyer and technology writer Richard Koman wonders aloud if the Pirate Bay's 'I-dunno' defense is all that much better."

Comments

Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[castrox]

The prosecution was caught red-handed both 4th and 5th day and the defense once again protested this method of trying to throw the defendants off guard with new material, saying things such as "you've done this all week -- have you not learned anything at all?" and "this is starting to look like an American movie trial -- we request you hand over ALL material NOW".

The court took a break for discussions. After 10 minutes the court informs the prosecution that they must hand over any material they have not already handed over and which they wish to use in their case. The prosecution, specifically Danowski, acts like a 5-year-old and says "but.. the problem, your Honor, is that I don't know if it's necessary, so.. [I wish not to, is the meaning of this]", which the court immediately smacks down with "the meaning of the court's decision is that all material, any material, not presented to the defense, that you wish to use, must be handed over NOW".

The prosecution clearly was very disappointed that they weren't allowed to play cowboys in court.

The prosecution also tried to snare Peter Sunde with a lot of documents found on the web.. Danowski tried to make it look like Peter Sunde had said things he hadn't said with the help of [ square brackets! ] which Peter Sunde kindly informed is a way to insert 3rd party information, or reflection, on a quote. The prosecution is going about with rather dirty tactics.

Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom, pleading not guilty and having nothing to do with TPB, calling TPB illegal, trying to have him label it as illegal as well. The defense protests, luckily. Got damn industry lawyers...

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fredrik Neij was questioned by lawyers who tried to paint him as the point man for The Pirate Bay operations. Peter Danowsky, who represents the music business, pointed out that Niej owned The Pirate Bayâ(TM)s domain and then showed him a contract he had signed saying that he would oversee operations for the site. Neijâ(TM)s response? âoeBut I didnâ(TM)t read it.â"

If that's the extent of TPBs defence, then they are screwed. I don't think saying 'I didn't read it' really stands up with a judge, ANY judge.

It does hold up if hes trying to avoid a conspiracy charge, he needs motive and intent, the lawyers are trying to use his contract to establish his intent. His response that he never read the thing quite neatly defeats using it as a written evidence of his intent.

It might backfire on him later for other reasons but if the question is "what are the operations of TBP" with the intent to stick you with a conspiracy charge "Who the fuck knows" is a great answer.

Re:FAO Editors

[arwel]

The word you're looking for is "counsel", not "council".

It's council in UK English.

Err, no it's not. QC = Queen's Counsel.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[N1AK]

I don't see how that's a contradiction.

Because you didn't read it correctly. The point OP was making was that either TPB are guilty of all crimes committed by the makers of torrents shared on their site or they are guilty of none. Saying they aren't responsible for paedophilic material, but are responsible for copyrighted material, when the process by which the materials .torrent gets onto there system is the same is nonsensical.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[slash.duncan]

According to ArsTechnica coverage, one of the interesting things about Swedish law is that sometimes, as here, civil and criminal cases can be dealt with in parallel in the same court room. Thus, we have both the state prosecutors and their equivalent of the RIAA both making their case, and even if some particular doesn't apply to the criminal case, it can still be valid to the civil case taking place in parallel in the same court room.

Combined civil/criminal trials like that seems to violate all sorts of ideas of justice folks like me here in the US might have, but it's the way their system works, and TPB seems reasonably confident of the outcome, much more so than they'd be here in the US under comparable civil-only circumstances, so who are we to say?