Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ross Ulbricht Found Guilty On All 7 Counts In Silk Road Trial

Posted by samzenpus on from the throwing-away-the-key dept.

blottsie writes Ross Ulbricht was convicted on Wednesday of running Silk Road, a Dark Net black market that became over a $100 million Internet phenomenon before Ulbricht's 2013 arrest. Ulbricht was found guilty on all seven felony charges he faced, including drug trafficking, continuing a criminal enterprise, hacking, money laundering, and fraud with identification documents. He faces up to life in prison for these convictions.

11 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Terrible lawyering by the defense by hackwrench · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read it was hampered by the prosecutor objecting to everything, and then they couldn't call expert witnesses.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sa...

  2. Re:no attempted murder charges? by Kobun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they really want to make sure he stays in forever, they'll try him on this too. Only finding him guilty of the DPR charges means that they're the only thing keeping him in - an appeal might fix that. If he is found guilty of the murder-for-hire charge as well, his chances of successfully appealing them both and getting out are likely poor.

  3. Re: If he actually did all that... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Opinions about the outcome don't matter. Due process doesn't allow for crowd sourced judgments. The legal procedure is well established and time-tested.

    The guy is guilty as charged. That's not open to opinion and not reversible by public vote.

    There are appeal process, other until then, let be written, so let it be done.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  4. Particularly since these are federal charges by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the case where there's a state and a federal case, often the state will step aside and let the feds try theirs first and if they get the conviction, leave it with that. That is what happened with the loony who shot Gabby Giffords and others in Arizona. AZ had murder and attempted murder cases against him, but so did the federal government, since he killed a federal judge and tried to kill a congressman. AZ let the feds arrest and try him, so they incur the cost of imprisoning him in their facilities. He's away for life anyways, so it doesn't matter. In the event the federal case had failed, AZ could have then stepped in and moved forward on their charges.

  5. Re:Buying drugs by BLToday · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or you know, you could just hop on a plane to Colorado.

  6. "mandatory minimum" 20 years, minus 13% by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The statute specifies a mandatory minimum of 20 years:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

    Good time takes 13% off of that.

    However, mandatory minimums aren't always so mandatory. Due to waiting until the last minute to handle some paperwork, I once went to jail for driving without a license. That had a mandatory minimum sentence of three days in jail. I was picked up Monday night and got out first thing Tuesday morning - so about 10 hours. Later, the prosecutor said to me "time served will work, right? Monday to Tuesday, that's three days isn't it?"

  7. Spaghetti on a slick wall fails to stick by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    indeed, assuming he was guilty, and the jury thought so. Press accounts pretty damning and red handed in the arrest. then it seems like those charges omitted what Id consider the most heinous crime: soliciting the murder of 5 people.

    I loved his lawyers theory that the Mt Gox mogul was really the mastermind. That would have been such a wickedly cool story. Since the FBI seized the assets of Silk Road about the same time Mt Gox had some liquidity problems it even seemed failntly plausible. I'd love to hear what the jury made of that piece of spaghetti on the wall.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Spaghetti on a slick wall fails to stick by dnavid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The biggest question not answered in the trial is how the servers were found. The defense didn't challenge on that point (no one knows why).

      The answer to many questions about the defense strategy during the trial seem to be that either Ulbricht or his attorney or both thought they were engaged in an internet debate and not a criminal trial. His lawyer repeatedly failed to follow proper procedure during the trial that every trial lawyer knows, and used legal strategies that weirdly precluded them from offering certain lines of defense. For example, a critical defense assertion seems to have been that many of the pieces of evidence the prosecution used against Ulbricht were not owned by him or not his property. By making that assertion, he couldn't simultaneously assert that his rights were violated when they were acquired because he claimed they were not his in the first place. When his lawyer tried to do so, he was explicitly told he couldn't do that, as if he didn't even know.

      Its almost as if the defense believed that since the prosecution bears the burden of proof, anything that had *any* alternative explanation, no matter how unlikely or illogical, automatically prevented proof beyond reasonable doubt. Which is ridiculous. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of this strategy was forced upon defense counsel by Ulbricht himself. It looks from the outside less like something an (even incompetent) attorney would do, and more like someone used to internet board sparring would think should work.

  8. Re:If he actually did all that... by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If he did it, he's a hero. He should be celebrated as the next Jeff Bezos for innovating a new way to do commerce online. Making the black market a safter place is a good thing, prohibition is what's wrong.

    \
    Now you will just have to hire hit men on amazon prime. Dude, he tried to get 5 people killed. He's not a hero just because you think he stuck it to the man and sold you your drugs on line.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. Re:And which law would you have them nullify? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And jury nullification is supposed to be for juries to nullify illegal laws (i.e. unconstitutional ones), not laws they might have a personal disagreement with.

    And who's to stop them? This is why the legal system hates jury nullification, you can rule not just on the facts and the law but on who the accused and the victim are. Slutty drunk girl? Rape charges dismissed. White guy on trial killing a black guy? Murder charges dismissed. You can find several people in this thread who'd give him a free pass to break any law he wants because he's some sort of "hero" to them.

    If the legislative and/or judicial branch of the government is broken then trying to fix it with jury nullification is like putting a band aid on a man that has jumped on a grenade, the rules will keep changing until the rule of law is restored. It's random as one man is convicted today and another is let go tomorrow for the same crime depending on who's on jury duty. Take a look at your average jury, do you really think it would be used most for the right or wrong reasons? Even smart people here are more than willing to abuse it, now imagine the dumb ones.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. Re: If he actually did all that... by xevioso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We don't have a "justice system."

    We have a "legal system." Just because the law was followed does not mean justice was done.