Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeguard | Hacker News Reader

In the US justice system, one is technically always innocent until judged guilty. He had only just begun the legal process. Sadly, the American system has evolved into an administrative model where confessing to something is mandatory to avoid a pernicious experience.

My sincere condolences to his friends and family.

View on HN

Indeed. This leads to weird things like the R. Budd Dwyer incident. He was a Pennsylvania Treasurer who was accused of a crime. He called a press conference and shot himself on stage. Hence, he died without being sentenced (and before being fired), and thus his family got a full pension.

The band Filter's song "Hey Man, Nice Shot" is about the incident.

well, that's one way to do it i suppose

Wikipedia says Dwyer was convicted, but not sentenced, when he committed suicide. However, he was not yet removed from office, which is what allowed his family to receive the pension.

Yeah (I edited it based on wikipedia a while ago...).

I'd still say "accused", even though he was convicted, because subsequent evidence (and the fact that he shot himself in the head) largely points to him actually having been innocent.

The "criminal lawyer" Smith was to blame here.

Having good defense can also be very expensive in US, right?

I've read in a few places that his defense would cost around a million.

http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull...

Even it cost him a million dollars to gain his freedom, wouldn't the fact he's free be more important than how much it would cost him?

Considering how intelligent he was and his earning potential (given his young age) as well as the community which obviously adored him - I find it hard to believe a million dollars would be a hardship for him.

I mean, if an internet cartoonist can raise over 100K in less than 24 hours, certainly someone of his stature could raise exponentially more?

> I mean, if an internet cartoonist can raise over 100K in less than 24 hours, certainly someone of his stature could raise exponentially more?

Quoting Larry Lessig at http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull...

   For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge

"...and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge."

Does anyone know what laws prevented Aaron from fundraising for his own defense?

I was wondering this too, and also exactly what conflict of interest forced Lessig to cease formal legal assistance.

Maybe he is referring to something like an injunction or bail terms preventing him from using the internet or speaking out about the case?

Lessig's wife established free.aaronsw.com, so I don't think he is talking broadly about donations.

I have no first-hand knowledge of the case, nor am I a lawyer, but Aaron's notoriety and access to a number of gigantic online megaphones could have prompted the judge to issue a gag order "to avoid tainting the jury pool" or something like that.

It sounds like it wouldn't be illegal, but the judge would probably say, "You have $2 million in savings [probably more like: "Oh, you were a cofounder of this startup that was acquired by a multinational publishing conglomerate"] and you're asking normal people to donate to your defense?" and perform some kind of punitive measures (or at least have disfavor cast upon his side of the story for appearing unethical) for what appears to be a major misuse of clout (i.e., a wealthy man fleecing the much poorer masses for his own support).

IANAL

Technically this is correct. However, an attorney will be paid by the state to represent a defendant and the defendant will be billed for the services, even if s/he can not pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com