Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeyouse | Hacker News Reader

The charges were dropped due to the seriousness of the charges that remained (and the corrupt Fed that would complicate the matter) but the judge found sufficient evidence of intent to order the hits (e.g. messages specifically ordering the hits, sending payment for the hits in the amount of $650k in bitcoin from wallets found on his laptop, writing in his journal "I ordered some people killed" and "they were killed") that those attempted hits were used as a sentencing enhancement for the other charges he was found guilty of - namely the criminal conspiracy and maintaining a criminal enterprise.

And "without parole" is a meaningless thing in Federal prison since there is no parole. If you commit Federal crimes, you get to do Federal sentences.

See page 20 onwards for the evidence that the judge weighed about the ordered hits: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17A559/20426/20171...

View on HN

So then yes the charges got dropped.

Just say that you agree with them. You don't have to angrily pretend like you are disagreeing. You agree completely, 100% that those charges got dropped.

Facts sans context are utterly meaningless

Right, the original “goal” was to insist the charges were dropped so nobody should denigrate Ross using the fact that they were brought in the first place. Just pointing out that a Federal judge found a preponderance of evidence that he ordered the hits as based on his journal, the chat logs, and the Bitcoin transfers.

Wait, how can “evidence” you weren’t convicted with be used for sentencing of a crime you were convicted for?

So the gov couldn’t prove its case but it still gets to use that data for sentencing?

So the evidence proved their case for the main charges - as demonstrated by the jury’s guilty verdict. The government then provides a sentencing recommendation and Ross’s lawyers can dispute anything the government claims. The bar for the sentencing enhancements is “a preponderance of evidence” which is something akin to 51% vs guilty / not-guilty which requires the jury to be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” or closer to 100%.

The judge weighed the evidence, weighed Ulbricht’s lawyers’ responses and found a preponderance of evidence that he did indeed order the hits which enhanced (extended) the sentence he was given.

It’s been awhile since I looked at the transcripts but at the time I couldn’t believe how bad his lawyers were. They offered almost no reply to damning accusation after damning accusation.

To me this seems like a fairly clear-cut constitutional violation.

You are being deprived of life/liberty at sentencing, if the judge can use information/"accusations" that the government failed to prove then you are being punished without conviction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com