Lori Drew Jury Reaches a Verdict:
According to the Associated Press. The verdict has not yet been announced, but should be announced as soon as the court can reconvene. Also, note that in the event of a guilty verdict on some or all counts, Judge Wu has still yet to rule on the Rule 29 motion to dismiss.
UPDATE: Fox News reports:
UPDATE: Fox News reports:
A jury has convicted a Missouri mother of lesser, misdemeanor crimes in the MySpace cyber-bullying case linked to a 13-year-old girl's suicide.Now the attention will turn to Judge Wu, who has yet to rule on the Rule 29 motion to dismiss. Also, note that for purposes of appeal, which will follow if Judge Wu does not grant the Rule 29 motion, this verdict focuses attention on the proseuction's core theory in the case: the theory that violating Terms of Service of a website is itself a federal crime. That is, the nature of the jury's verdict -- if not set aside by Judge Wu -- will allow the appeal to focus directly on the computer crime issue rather than on the suicide and its admissibility.
The Los Angeles federal court jury on Wednesday rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.
However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization.
The jurors could not reach a verdict on a conspiracy count.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Judge Tentatively Dismisses Charges Against Lori Drew:
- Judge Wu Reschedules Sentencing in Lori Drew Case to July, Leaves Motion to Dismiss Undecided:
- Additional Sentencing Briefs in Lori Drew Case:...
- What Does the Lori Drew Verdict Mean?:
- Lori Drew Jury Reaches a Verdict:
- Jury Question in the Lori Drew Case:...
- Lori Drew Update:
- Pro Bono Defense in United States v. Lori Drew:
- The MySpace Suicide Indictment -- And Why It Should Be Dismissed:
Now we need to hope for a dismissal, and a strong appellate court statement that 18 USC 1030 does not criminalize violations of adherence contracts.
Are you trying to argue the Skilling trial was more fair than this - he's still in prison. Or the Stewart case.
Law is just an instrument of popular will - there is no "law" any more.
It happens frequently, of course. Just looking at the U.S. Supreme Court alone, they often rule in favor of terrorists, murderers, and rapists. To pick one of the Court's most recent high profile decisions, in Kennedy v. Louisiana the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who had raped his young daughter (not, I assume you would agree, a defndant likely to win any popularity contests).
But then I am a person who submitted a brief with angled quotes, so perhaps I have no credibility with you.
Maybe this doesn't quite qualify because it is SCOTUS and might not be quite highly publicized enough, but I think Kennedy v. Louisiana strikes me as a good example of courts stepping in on the side of unpopular defendants.
Also, this may be somewhat tangental, but I think that the 4th Circuit's decision not to vacate their earlier ruling in Padilla v. Hanft strikes me as standing up to the Bush Administration in a very high profile case.
VC posters - WATCH OUT !!! We know who you are !!!! Or, if we DON'T, you're a CRIMINAL !!!!!
There have also been some cases in Washington state where the state supreme court has sided with defendants on the basis their actions were not actually illegal, even where such a verdict was very unpopular. I am trying to find the specific cases, but it has been a while.
The 5th Circuit overturned the guilty verdict against KKKer James Seale, who kidnapped and murdered two black guys back in the day. That was a few months ago. Presently it's on en banc review, which has made at least one judge unhappy.
That particular interpretation of law seems to conflate by analogy two distinct old common law concepts, trespass and burglary. Every burglary is also a trespass, but every trespass is not a burglary.
Trespass can occur whenever authorization or license to be present on the property is exceeded. If presence is otherwise authorized but the sign says "no fishing", then the authorized visitor who fishes becomes a trespasser.
Burglary requires breaking and entering, or circumventing some means that were intended to prevent authorized intrusion to a dwelling.
The two are not the same.
But the computer law as interpreted in this case has made "computer trespass", or exceeding the license of the TOS even in a de minimis way while already using the computer legitimately, into "computer burglary", or hacking into a computer by circumventing the means that were intended to keep out people who had absolutely no authorization to access the computer in the first place.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.