Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlgaddis | Hacker News Reader

A few friends and myself chipped in some money for his legal defense, taking hin at his word when he said he was innocent.

Lesson learned, I suppose.

View on HN

I directly knew, from being in some IRC channels he and I frequented ages ago, that he was absolutely guilty of the charge. But I also knew (as far as I could tell) that he genuinely turned over a new leaf a while ago, left that life behind, and is trying to do good now. This is a pretty common story for whitehats; many of their hats weren't quite so white in their pasts, whether people around them are aware or not.

People make mistakes, and people can change. Don't feel too bad for contributing to his defense. He fucked up and is trying to make up for the damage he caused by sincerely helping people.

The plea agreement he signed says he was still selling malware until late 2015 at least, and was arrested in 2017. If he had turned over a new leaf, it wasnt for very long. I think he probably had stopped, but only because of the attention he received from the strings wannacry.exe thing.

So you're saying he continued to commit crimes up until May 2017? That's when WannaCry happened. His fame came on pretty quickly after that and it didn't take long for him to get arrested.

Edit: The source code leaked at some point so its hard to tell when he stopped selling it based on available malware samples. New variants were detected at least as late as 2018. He was accused of selling it in 2014 and 2015 though, so there's a decent chance that he stopped a couple of years before his arrest.

My general rule for judging adults is to not judge them based on dumb decisions they made while young. Young adults do dumb things and will continue to do so. If you're still doing dumb things 30+ then that's probably you.

I wouldn't hold it against him that he pled guilty. The government has unlimited resources, and he didn't. Innocent people plead guilty every day.

This is absolutely a problem. America has a system which incites prosecutors to "win" in court rather than actually trying to serve justice, because that is how they advance. Plea bargains are a perverse way to keep this up.

Plea bargain here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5972658-Marcus-Hutch...

From the deal: "The government agrees to make no recommendation regarding the ultimate sentence to be imposed; however, the government remains free to take a position with respect to any fact or factor pertinent to the sentencing decision consistent with this agreement and to advise the court that the government's failure to make a sentencing recommendation should not be construed as a recommendation for leniency or severity."

The guy got screwed.

What is it that you think that quote means? That's boilerplate language. The plea agreement is in fact very detailed and precise about the sentencing range Hutchins faces (it's relatively low).

Prosecutors sometimes offer 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements, where the sentence is defined exactly and the judge can only agree or refuse.

This was definitely not that. It is the very opposite of precise.

The PSR will be generated, and the judge will decide on the sentence, ranging from deportation without incarceration to 5 years.

If your doctor told you you had 0-5 years left to live, inclusive, you wouldn’t call that detailed and precise, would you?

Realistically, can they avoid criticism here? They offer a sentence -> they're only offering a high sentence/they are forcing him to accept a longer sentence. They don't offer him a sentence -> they should have offered him a sentence.

No, I would actually have been more okay with a sentence. It might have been a little more straightforward.

That's not how this works. The prosecution and the defendant can agree to about what they'll ask for, but it's ultimately up to the judge to sentence. Prosecutors can't "offer him a sentence".

Yes they can. It’s called an 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.

Most don’t or won’t.

The judge still has to agree to a C plea. And, as you mention, they're rare.

The government absolutely does not have anything near unlimited resources. I've been listening to the Ken White podcast All the President's Lawyers and something he repeatedly says is just how shockingly few criminals, especially white collar criminals, actually get prosecuted because there's simply no budget to go after them.

With respect to Ken White, that’s a load of crap. Between AUSA’s, FBI, CJA’s, FD’s, and judge’s office, at least $0.3M in my case and counting.

That's kind of the point. When they go after someone they're going to spend the money. No point spreading resources so thinly that they can't prosecute anyone properly.

That’s the opposite of your first point. When they have no trouble spending the money, they have no trouble spending the money.

Yes and no.

White collar crimes are very expensive to investigate, prosecute, and keep the attention of the jury. High-profile clients and attorneys invite a lot of red tape, expensive to cut through, so they don't bother unless conviction is certain. Failure is embarrassing and makes the State look weak.

But Ken White is living in a bubble if he thinks the State won't spend the money to go after any low-hanging fruit it can reach.

He said exactly that: it's shocking how few criminals get prosecuted. Like, at all.

He's also posted a statement on his website admitting to the crime. https://www.malwaretech.com/public-statement

It's likely part of his plea bargain is that he needs to publicly admit to the crimes.

I don't know anything about this case but innocent people plead guilty all the time in the USA. It's a much safer choice than going to trial where the sentence may be much much longer.

wait, your opinion actually changed? you should take what is said in US/any courts with a grain of salt

don't trust testimonies, don't trust statements, or at LEAST recognize their infallibility

just understand the decision tree and how they change the options available during the legal process

in this case, we have:

- duress

- a short remorseful statement that is hoping to get his sentence reduced or even nullified

- no room for appeals court due to the plea agreement

the saying goes "remorse is for the courts", and unfortunately this will be used against me if I am ever indicted for something

Reply on news.ycombinator.com