[logfromblammo]

I personally think that I should be skeptical of information released by entities that have a vested interest in influencing public opinion.

I think it highly likely that the prosecution is going over the evidence that it intends to use with a fine-toothed comb to avoid potential embarrassments during discovery. As this is a somewhat newsworthy case, they are going to be particularly cautious about making sure all the keystone facts are supported by admissible evidence. On top of that, they have to conceal some of their tactics so that they can continue to use them successfully in the future.

If Ulbricht did solicit murder for hire, I'm not entirely certain that he would have even thought of trying that if government agents were not already investigating him, due to his involvement in the drug trade. It might have been entrapment, just as a means of putting him into police custody, making him unable to interfere with further investigations by erasing trails that had not yet been followed, and also providing a means to seize his Bitcoins.

By that hypothesis, the state suspects he is Dread Pirate Roberts, but lacks the evidence to prove it. People in custody are less able to shield themselves from investigations. So they set him up with an illegal entrapment that would not necessarily support a conviction, but is plenty good enough for an indictment and arrest. Then they grab him and execute warrants based on the "I gotcha, sucka" charges that will end up supporting the drug kingpin case. With that access, they make seizures and file civil forfeiture cases against the assets, because the legal standards for those are woefully skewed in the state's favor. The prosecutor declines to pursue the murder for hire charges because he always knew they were bogus, and instead dumps all the gathered evidence into the drug trafficking and racketeering charges, as it is now sanitized by warrants under the previous indictment.

If that is indeed what has happened here, and it results in a conviction, I don't care how guilty Ulbricht is, because the state should not be able to corrupt our legal system in that fashion. He should go free, and the prosecutors and police that were involved should fill that cell in his place.

[kemayo]

> It might have been entrapment, just as a means of putting him into police custody, making him unable to interfere with further investigations by erasing trails that had not yet been followed, and also providing a means to seize his Bitcoins.

It's only entrapment if government agents persuaded him to commit a crime he wasn't otherwise inclined to commit. For it to be a defense he'd have to show that the government actively talked him into hiring someone -- just offering to do it and seeing if he takes them up on it isn't enough. (The analogy I've seen used is that an undercover cop saying "hey, want to buy some cocaine?" isn't entrapment.)

[logfromblammo]

My personal standard is that it is unacceptable to break one law to enforce another. At best, evidence gathered by an undercover cop posing as a criminal can refute a character-based defense in a pre-existing case.

Since having and selling cocaine is (currently) illegal, any evidence gathered by that illegal act is tainted. You can't reasonably prosecute the person buying unless you also prosecute the person selling. And that person is effectively immune.

The current lower standard in the courts--whereby the police can set up any situation, no matter how ridiculous, and entice a person to commit a crime that he might never have committed without that prompting--is an open invitation to police misconduct that may be more damaging than the crimes they are claiming to combat.

"Hey, want some coke?" is entrapment. The state agent is encouraging people to commit new crimes for the express purpose of arresting and convicting them for it. That isn't fighting crime. That's manufacturing crime to pad your own job performance metrics. You may be showing that people in the area have motive and method to commit certain types of crimes, opportunity is still a significant barrier. Traditional crime-fighting seeks to deny those opportunities rather that providing them.

This is why I find tactics like "bait cars" to be sleazy and indicative of lazy police work.

If you have mice, you can set out baited traps and be certain to catch some. But it will not eradicate the infestation. You have to clean your house, removing accessible food sources. You have to eliminate places where the mice can hide and breed. And you have to seal up any means of ingress and egress. Traps just temporarily alleviate the symptoms. The real solution takes much more effort.

I am not, however, part of the current justice system, so my opinion on these matters is not taken into consideration directly. But the prosecution relying upon traps has cause to worry, if I am on their jury.