As anticipated, the Ross Ulbricht legal squad bring filed a lengthy appeal of the verdict that placed him inwards prison theatre for life.
As
reported last year, it was unlikely for this non to happen. Attorney Joshua Dratel had stated that non exclusively would they appeal, he went equally far equally to nation the many reasons why this would come about nearly right away afterwards the judgement was read.
The appeal, which is 170 pages long heed you, appeals the verdict of
"ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT, AKA DREAD PIRATE ROBERTS, AKA SILK ROAD, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1, AKA DPR"
The Ulbricht legal squad goes on to nation an abundance of reasons that it considers grounds for appeal going as well as so far equally to nation that the courtroom abused its powerfulness inwards several instances.
"THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DENIED ULBRICHT HIS FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO PRESENT Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 DEFENSE, AND Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 FAIR TRIAL BY (A) PRECLUDING THE DEFENSE FROM USING AT TRIAL THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO DEA SPECIAL AGENT CARL FORCE’S CORRUPTION; (B) REFUSING TO ORDER THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND BRADY MATERIAL REGARDING CORRUPTION; AND (C) DENYING ULBRICHT’S MOTION FOR Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 NEW TRIAL BASED ON ADDITIONAL POST-TRIAL DISCLOSURES REGARDING FORCE AND ANOTHER CORRUPT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT INVOLVED IN THE SILK ROAD INVESTIGATION"
That was the showtime betoken of many as well as goes on to advert several more:
- THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY CURTAILING CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE DEFENSE THEORY AT TRIAL
- THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING TWO DEFENSE EXPERTS
- THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING
- ADMISSION OF ANDREW JONES’S STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST PURSUANT TO RULE 804(3)(b), FED.R.EVID., AND/OR RULE 807, FED.R.EVID.
- THE COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULINGS CONSTITUTED CUMULATIVE ERROR THAT DEPRIVED ULBRICHT OF DUE PROCESS AND Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 FAIR TRIAL
In additional to the abuse of discretion claims, it is alleged that Ulbricht's 4th amendment rights were violated.
THE UNLIMITED SEARCHES AND SEIZURE OF ULBRICHT’S ENTIRE LAPTOP AND GMAIL AND FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THEY CONSTITUTED THE FRUIT OF (A) Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 WARRANT THAT LACKED ANY PARTICULARITY; AND (B) UNLAWFUL AND WARRANTLESS PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE ORDERS
The appeal too claims life inwards prison theatre is unreasonable, or substantially unreasonable equally they set it:
THE LIFE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON ULBRICHT WAS PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE
Will It Work?
The appeal is aggressive for the legal squad as well as for goodness reason, a previous asking was denied yesteryear the Judge inwards the instance final year. The enquiry is, volition this work?
Well, in all probability non for that final reason, Silk Road damaged allot of lives as well as ended others. The judgement was non unheard of yesteryear whatever means.
What they create bring inwards their favor specifically is the Judge over the case, Katherine B. Forrest, refusing to let the submission of what they reckon "crucial evidence" inwards the instance (Point III). This was a flake bewildering at the fourth dimension it happened but inwards a nutshell, the Judge was inside her amount correct to create this. The prosecution had no prior noesis of the witnesses the defense forcefulness wanted to call, thence unprepared, as well as this was coming afterwards another questionable moves on the business office of the defense. In other words, she powerfulness bring only been fed upwards amongst the defense, but regardless,she was soundless fully inside her correct to create what she did.
Should she bring done it? That's ane for the legal experts who bring amount noesis of the instance to acquaint their arguments, but you lot would recall that inwards a instance equally publicized equally this ane carrying a punishment of life inwards prison theatre that she would bring decided to listen the witnesses as well as given the prosecution ample fourth dimension for preparation. That is patently non what she did.
The other item that could weigh heavily inwards favor of the defense forcefulness inwards the 4th amendment violation claim. The appeal states that:
"The search of Ulbricht’s laptop violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant authorizing the search lacked whatever particularity, but instead expressly as well as purposefully sought a search without whatever limiting principle."
It goes on to advert the broadly occupation reasoning for searching the calculator for prove which leads to an number amongst in all probability crusade equally well. They specifically create non necktie the justification of search as well as seizure to whatever specific information sought, instead they were able to search everything including affair of a personal nature such equally relationships, political views, etc.. as well as that most sure could live a violation of rights, nonetheless if you lot hold off at the way it's worded, the warrant ties the SUBJECT OFFENSES to the powerfulness to identify and support these offenses yesteryear way of providing additional evidence, which would both back upwards the defense forcefulness inwards its particularity claim or justify the warrant depending on how it was performed as well as conducted.
Lets confront it, anyone who has dealt amongst regime knows really good that they don't operate "by the book", nor are they fifty-fifty fully qualified to empathize the depth of legal implications inwards the resultant they improperly obtain specific data. This could live plausible, but the claim inwards regards to Gmail for instance could live a dumb motion on regime business office since they could bring legally obtained this same information yesteryear going through Google who yesteryear contract of service damage for using Gmail allows them to create anything they desire amongst this information including manus it over to authorities. It's plausible the warrant may bring been misappropriated inwards this instance, difficult to tell without to a greater extent than information.
New Trial?
So volition Ulbricht instruct a novel trial? Hard to say, but afterwards reading the entire 170 pages in ane lawsuit really chop-chop in that location appears to live to a greater extent than or less grounds for it. It's clear the legal squad treatment this are non going to give inwards easily as well as innovation to perish along inwards their pursuit of a novel trial. The Judge hither may create upwards one's heed pay attending to this appeal earlier things travel out of hand, but at this point, its difficult to adequately predict what determination volition live made.
Editor's Note: The amount appeal tin flaming live read here: Ulricht Appeal