| ▲ | stockresearcher 15 hours ago |
| > his overturned conviction only for wrong jurisdiction What are you getting at? If an appeals court says “wrong jurisdiction”, that’s an “rm -rf” on the whole entire case. There’s nothing left to argue about. |
|
| ▲ | mothballed 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes there is, they can reargue the whole thing in another jurisdiction since he was never 'in jeopardy.' Considering he was convicted in another jurisdiction, and they can retry him in the 'right' one, why wouldn't a reasonable person anticipate that might happen? I don't think Weev is living in Ukraine/Transnistria to practice his Slavic languages. And the reason why I brought up it was overturned, was because I knew someone would mention his case was vacated, and I wanted to make clear it wasn't vacated because there was something improper found about the legal question of the CFAA. |
| |
| ▲ | stockresearcher 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | They could start over in the correct jurisdiction. Yes. The case that was being appealed is gone. Gone. I think that the type of person that excels at software development would also excel at lawyering. But they should probably go to law school and pay attention in class. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | JadeNB 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > > his overturned conviction only for wrong jurisdiction > What are you getting at? > If an appeals court says “wrong jurisdiction”, that’s an “rm -rf” on the whole entire case. There’s nothing left to argue about. I think your parent comment meant something like "the case wasn't overturned on the basis of deficiencies in the legal theory of the crime." |
| |
| ▲ | kemayo 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Generally this is a good thing to happen, because it's fairly quick and easy to argue you're in the wrong jurisdiction... and if that's the case, it doesn't matter what the legal theory was, since the court couldn't convict you anyway. Perhaps selfishly, I'd rather get out of a trial in the motion to dismiss stage, rather than having to very-expensively argue the merits all the way to the end. | |
| ▲ | torstenvl 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "jurisdiction" literally means "the power to say what the law is" If the court had no jurisdiction, it is not possible for them to rule on "deficiencies in the legal theory of the crime" in that case. | |
| ▲ | stockresearcher 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it’s in the wrong jurisdiction, the court doesn’t get to the point where they look at the legal theory. | | |
| ▲ | JadeNB 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right. I think your parent comment was pointing out that it's not that the legal theory failed, but that it was never tested, and so might (or might not) still be sound. |
|
|
