|
|
|
|
|
|
by snuxoll
2524 days ago
|
|
|
Dunno, I’m just an armchair lawyer who watches too many Leonard French videos. Like I said in my original comment, I haven’t read the case record in detail, nor am I familiar enough with the Federal Rules or Criminal Procedure to know if there’s some evidentiary requirement they cannot meet without the contents of the drive or whatever. I’m guessing it’s because they are operating off testimony of a witness (defendants sister) claiming she was shown the alleged images, and since they weren’t on the unencrypted internal drive they MUST be on the encrypted external drives. That combined with the knowledge that these files were in fact purportedly known to be downloaded via his internet connection is enough for something, but all they have without the drives is hearsay, hence the compulsion to decrypt then? Personally I think in this instance with recent rulings that an individual cannot be identified by an IP address and a single witness that there isn’t enough to KNOW anything, otherwise I could wardrive around, download a bunch of CP on somebodies connection and say I saw them looking at it through a window or something. All I know is that we do have precedent for this in the physical world, so it’s not a logical leap to require disclosure of cryptographic keys when we KNOW what they unlock. |
|
|
It isn't hearsay in this case though. Hearsay is when Alice testifies that Bob told her he witnessed Charlie viewing child porn. Generally it should not be considered as fact that Bob witnessed this.
It's not hearsay if Alice testifies that she witnessed Charlie viewing child porn, which seems to be the case here. This kind of testimony is direct evidence.
Then there is the circumstantial evidence: The prosecution can show these encrypted drives exist, belong to the defendant, that he knows how to decrypt them and refused, etc.
I just don't see how it's reasonable to claim that isn't good enough for a jury to decide who to believe. They should just try him, or let him go.