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