Quote from: Blackbird0 on March 16, 2015, 01:34:18 AM

Quote from: rikkie on March 15, 2015, 08:48:18 PM

There were plenty of legal errors in the case. The specific legal error that was claimed in this specific filing was the fact that some evidence was given to the defense at the last minute and as a result the defense team was not able to put on a proper defense.

Well, that's not specific. Let me go pull the filing and read it...

Upon reading:

I am not impressed with their motion on the Brady issues. They seem to claim that certain interviews of Ulbricht's friends were not turned over. They claim that these contained exculpatory material, but only under "information and belief." That's law-speak for "weak ass." Defense does not provide any evidence that the material contained therein is exculpatory or material.

They are trying to leave no stone untouched. If the interviews are looked into and it is determined that they contain exculpatory evidence then they will win the appeal. The upon information and belief is to protect the attorney from committing perjury.

Quote from: Blackbird0 on March 16, 2015, 01:34:18 AM

They also seem to indicate that SA Der-Yeghiayan fingered an alternative suspect, but again, no details on whether or not this actually happened, was true, or credible. They seem to complain a lot about late disclosures of certain Jencks material (though Jenks material need not be disclosed until after witness testimony, though it is good practice to do so before). Nevertheless, given the defense's horribly shoddy and unprofessional way it handled its expert disclosures, I imagine the government will say the modification of the exhibits was due to the fact that the defense appeared to change its trial strategy midstream.

He fingered Mark - the guy from gox. This happened during the trial, and the defense could argue that the government should have known this information prior to it starting.

Quote from: Blackbird0 on March 16, 2015, 01:34:18 AM

The points about warrantless surveillance of a Tor exit node are similarly baseless. Ulbricht has no standing to challenge the warrantless surveillance or seizure of third-party property.

I would disagree on this one. They may have been surviving third party property overall, however the information being intercepted was communications between Ross's property and others.

Your argument is like saying that if the government were to hack into Verizon without a search warrant and monitor my phone communications that I would not have standing to sue under the 4th amendment because they hacked into a third party's property to illegally do surveillance on my phone line.

Quote from: Blackbird0 on March 16, 2015, 01:34:18 AM

Why Mr. Ulbricht chose to deny ownership of the Silk Road servers for the purpose of the suppression motion months ago, though that acknowledgement could not be used against him in trial, is quite frankly, beyond me, and beyond the thinking of greater legal minds than my own. As J. Forrest wrote in her decision denying Ulbricht's very-late expert disclosures: "Lawyers and clients make tactical decisions. The Court cannot always understand why certain decisions are made, nor need it. But when tactical decisions run contrary to established rules and case law, the Court's duty is clear. The Court is duty-bound to apply the law as it exists, not as any party wishes it to be."

They were probably on the fence on him testifying or not. By the decision to testify was made it was probably too late to change the motion to suppress evidence (this likely happened mid trial). As you probably noticed, Ross for all intensive purposes did not put on a defense.

The defense also has submitted an amended motion to suppress the evidence, but this time admitting ownership of the servers in question.