[srj]

It's surprising to me that the prosecutor is allowed to essentially insinuate crimes to influence the jury, without the need to prove them. That seems to undermine the process because it creates a "there's smoke so there must be fire" mentality for the jury.

[tveita]

There was plenty of evidence that he ordered the hits, and the defense had the opportunity to address the evidence in court. The chat logs go far beyond "insinuation"

It's ridiculous that people are pretending there is any doubt about his guilt because they like crypto and/or drugs.

[echoangle]

So why not properly charge him then?

Do you not think the optics are a bit weird when you sentence someone to life for something relatively small, but the reason is another crime you’re very sure he did but you didn’t bother to charge him with?

[olalonde]

Prosecutors often choose not to pursue additional charges against someone already serving a life sentence. This approach helps avoid wasting court time and resources on cases that are unlikely to change the individual’s circumstances or contribute meaningfully to justice (none of the murders for hire resulted in victims).

I actually wonder if those charges may still be on the table now that a pardon has been granted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion

[philjohn]

AFAIK they were dismissed with prejudice, so can't be brought again.

[olalonde]

If I understand correctly, only one of the "murder-for-hire" allegations was dismissed with prejudice[0]. However, he was suspected of orchestrating a total of six "murder-for-hire" plots.

[0] https://freeross.org/false-allegations/

[myko]

Comically (horrifically sadly?) they were dismissed that way because he was already in prison for life with no possibility of getting out, so the court did not want to waste time on it.

And here we are

[tveita]

Being a drug kingpin is not considered "something relatively small" under US law, as you can see from the sentencing. Being the leader of a large drug operation and ordering hits to protect your business would be considered worse than trying to take out a hit for whatever "personal reasons".

Obviously the hits are a lot messier to prosecute as well with the misconduct of the FBI agents, maybe you could hammer that enough to confuse a jury. But people are commenting like the evidence outright didn't exist - I can only think they have either heard it told second-hand, or are employing motivated reasoning.

[lII1lIlI11ll]

Of course it is. Throwing in potential evidence of unrelated crimes to sway other people's (specifically jury's) opinion about the defendant without formally charging him is exactly what the word "insinuation" means[0]:

the action of suggesting, without being direct, that something unpleasant is true

[0]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insinuat...

[sebzim4500]

> There was plenty of evidence that he ordered the hits, and the defense had the opportunity to address the evidence in court

Clearly not that much evidence if the state didn't bother to prosecute those charges. And why would they? The judge sentenced him as though he had been found guilty of them.

[jari_mustonen]

Coincidentally, on the same day, SCOTUS confirmed in Andrew v. White ruling [1] that admitting prejudicial evidence violates due process rights under the 14th Amendment.

1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-6573_m647.pdf

[RetpolineDrama]

It's a gross miscarriage of justice.

The gov should have to prove you committed a crime before that information is admissible at sentencing.