undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsnknight14y ago0 comments

But if you've done it right, they can't prove it. In US law, you can't convict someone criminally because you suspect they're withholding information, you have to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

0 comments

thaumaturgy14y ago

I've actually been in court for this kind of stuff. (Not as a defendant.) What actually happens is the prosecutor tells the court that they have X, Y, and Z evidence, which indicates the existence of W evidence, even though they can't actually get hold of W evidence. Then they don't charge you for W evidence directly, they just run the charges up for X, Y, and Z until you agree to a plea bargain anyway.

Your ability to defend against tactics like this is 100% dependent on the size of your bank account, which, by the way, may also be compromised if the prosecutors can convince the right people that you made any money at all on your illegal activities.

This is why I am mostly blasé about things like TrueCrypt's capabilities or this particular part of the law or what-have-you. If you're doing something illegal involving a computer, you're already screwed anyway -- unless you're independently wealthy and have some serious connections.

nknightOP14y ago

> What actually happens is the prosecutor tells the court that they have X, Y, and Z evidence, which indicates the existence of W evidence, even though they can't actually get hold of W evidence. Then they don't charge you for W evidence directly, they just run the charges up for X, Y, and Z until you agree to a plea bargain anyway.

Uh, yeah, so what?

If they have the evidence to prove you committed a crime, then they have the evidence to prove you committed a crime. It kind of makes sense that they'd, y'know, prosecute you for that crime.

They can't just arbitrarily increase your sentence based on the suspicion of another crime. There are statutory limits for the crimes they can prove, augmented by sentencing guidelines. The court cannot exceed the statutory limits, and deviations from the sentencing guidelines require a justification to be articulated. "I think you also did W" is not a valid justification.

You're always at risk of a harsh sentence for whatever crimes can be proven. If you're not prepared to take that risk, you should probably avoid committing the crimes in the first place, no?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse