Hacker News Reader

Comment by emodendroket | Hacker News Reader

What difference would it have made?

Trials have to prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If agents involved in the investigations were caught misbehaving, that may very well add doubt to the validity of the investigation's results. Or at least it could delay the trial while the results are re-evaluated.

Well, I took a high school civics class too, but I don't see these guys as having been central to the case against Ulbricht at all.

I didn't (nor do I see what high school has to do with the most basic principle defining a state of law). And I didn't say they were central to the case, either.

But depending on the lawyers and the judge, this could have been used to construct something that would have affected either the progress or the outcome of the trial.

It's entirely philosophical anyway.

> I didn't (nor do I see what high school has to do with the most basic principle defining a state of law).

It was my way of trying to suggest that, like everyone with a modicum of education in the United States, I'm aware of the principle that accused persons are innocent until proven guilty in US law, and you didn't really need to point it out to me like it was something I hadn't thought of.

Any evidence these 2 agents provided would be regarded as unreliable.

What evidence did these 2 agents provide?

For one thing, the entire Maryland hitman case collapses if you can't use anything Force touched, because he ran it from start to finish as Nob.

No doubt the case they were working is probably tanked, but my question was meant to be pointed more towards the trial that's already happened, where evidence has been presented (past tense).

It would cast a shadow of doubt over any and all evidence that these now discredited agents were involved in collecting and any testimony they made or influenced.

IANAL, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in, but if you can show in court that a witness has comitted a crime you can show that they are not trustworthy and essentially impeach their testimony.

There was so much evidence against Ulbricht that it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but the fact that this is only now being brought to light is very suspicious.

> The Baltimore investigation resulted in an indictment of Mr. Ulbricht on a charge of murder for hire, but that case has remained pending and the evidence in support of it was kept out of the New York trial, apparently because of the investigation into the agents.

They were part of a separate case against Ulbricht. The one he was convicted on wasn't based on their evidence and/or testimony.

I would assume just media wise

Reply on news.ycombinator.com