That seems to be imply that she is lying, though.
What if she actually doesn't know the password? For example if it isn't her laptop or the password was written down and lost or it is an old encrypted volume which she doesn't use anymore, etc.
What if she actually doesn't know the password? For example if it isn't her laptop or the password was written down and lost or it is an old encrypted volume which she doesn't use anymore, etc.
Where did she get it from? (or from whom? - she should be able to say.) In what condition was the laptop found, on her desk? opened? screen saver on? or powered down? in a pile, covered in dust? any fingerprints or other signs of use? Any removable media present? They can look in her office for passwords written down. They can check her mobile devices for password managers and compel her to unlock those.
Understand for the case to even proceed to indictment (which happened last year), they have done all of this work to make sure that their case is pretty solid. There are pretrial hearings, and depositions and other things which lawyers do to answer all these questions about whether they can prove that she really should be able to provide the password.
The fact is, no matter how sure the prosecution is of the accused's guilt and the hard drive's content, the accused can still just have forgotten the password. That's it, just forgotten the password. and the accused could be innocent of the crime, and now facing inescapable prison time, all because they wanted to keep their personal financial documents safe and have an unreliable memory. That is not a reasonable way to carry about justice.
I agree fully, forgetting passwords happens. My AD account at work has a short, random password with a forgiving lifespan. Even though I have to enter it a few dozen times a day, following the long weekend I had for the 4th it took me 5 minutes of sitting at my desk before I remembered enough to make a few guesses at it.
If I went more than a week or so without opening my encrypted partition, the password is long, complicated and changed frequently enough that I will most likely forget it. I currently only know it by muscle memory.
Why doesn't the prosecutor ask banks and other parties for the records necessary to prove the accused is guilty? This is a mortgage fraud case right? Why can't they look at emails, contracts, bank records, and phone records that 3rd parties must have?
Since you can't defraud yourself, there has to be some other party involved who can turn over evidence against you.
If the prosecutor is so smart, why demand that the defendant incriminate himself? That is how the system in France works. Perhaps this prosecutor should move there.