Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

pdfserver.amlaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#121

Post by bripeace »

geuis wrote: post #50

So I just finished reading the judgement. The one point that is unclear to me is the charge of violating the CFAA. The secondary charge related to NJ is thoroughly debunked and is the basis of the vacated judgment. But since the CFAA is a federal statute, isn't venue irrelevant since all venues in the case are in the US? Is this an instance where, now having been vacated on the basis of venue, weev can't be retried w…

The error is a structural one. Due to that fact the entire trial was tainted, not matter what else happened. Thus they can start over.

Just because it's a federal crime doesn't mean he can be tried anywhere. This is exactly what this is all about. That under Federal, and New Jersey, law he has to be tried in one of the places the crime was committed.

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#125

Post by [deleted] »

rdl wrote: post #27

Does weev get any compensation? I get that he's now retroactively never been convicted of a felony, but he was in prison focused on protecting his corn bread for a couple years. Clearly this affects his employability, as well as his general happiness, having been deprived of both liberty and safe corn bread for a while. Civil suit against ATT? Wrongful prosecution against the feds?

[deleted]

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#126

Post by joshAg »

harryh wrote: post #62
rdl wrote: post #3

I'm assuming they're going to just let this die, now, and release weev, and not try again against him. This avoids any serious ruling about CFAA, and preserves the arbitrarily-expansive reading of CFAA to use against other victims. They've already ruined weev's life sufficiently for their purposes.

Has anyone made any actual statements one way or the other on the possibility of re-prosecution in a different venue? I agree with your guess, but one never knows.

possibility of re-prosecution? definitely possible. I linked as close as I could, but check out the section on non-final judgements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Retrial_...

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#127

Post by joshAg »

hyborg787 wrote: post #10
rdl wrote: post #3

I'm assuming they're going to just let this die, now, and release weev, and not try again against him. This avoids any serious ruling about CFAA, and preserves the arbitrarily-expansive reading of CFAA to use against other victims. They've already ruined weev's life sufficiently for their purposes.

Does double jeopardy not apply here?

It does not. check out the section on non-final judgements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Retrial_...

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#129

Post by yp_maplist »

aroch wrote: post #45
rdl wrote: post #27

Does weev get any compensation? I get that he's now retroactively never been convicted of a felony, but he was in prison focused on protecting his corn bread for a couple years. Clearly this affects his employability, as well as his general happiness, having been deprived of both liberty and safe corn bread for a while. Civil suit against ATT? Wrongful prosecution against the feds?

AT&T isn't a named party and did not bring the suit. Their civil liability is pretty much zero as far as I understand it. Wrongful prosecution is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to prove. Because it was overturned on appeal and the determination was not on the merits (ie. what he did isn't actually illegal) but instead on procedural grounds he loses a bunch of options for remedy.

If he had been convicted would he have also been required to pay for the "damage" done to AT&T's computer?

Isn't there something in the CFAA about having to allege causing damage, measurable in financial terms?

Maybe they did not use that provision?

Surely there must be logical reasons I am overlooking, but I find it peculiar that today technology companies can so easily get federal authorities to bring proceedings on their behalf.

Whether it's the DMCA or the CFAA, these "violations" seem like civil matters to me.

Do they harm the public, or do they just (potentially) harm a business?

I thought this opinion was very clearly written and although it only addresses venue, it does have some precedential value for the future of "CFAA law".

For one, if you plan to rely on improper venue as a defense, stay away from the Second Circuit!

Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]

#130

Post by lambda »

examancer wrote: post #14

I appreciate the HN desire to link to the source, but as I reader I'd really appreciate submitters link to a good summary/analysis for dense subject matter such as court documents or scientific papers. Ideally they'd chose a summary that itself links to the source.

As a reader, I far prefer this to any kind of summary. This was well written, thoughtful, and thorough. I can't imagine any value that any summary would have added to this, unless I were just hoping to skim it over my lunch break. And I greatly prefer to read one well written, thoughtful, thorough article in a day, then a dozen summaries which inflame the senses without providing any particularly useful information.
Post reply on HN