The messages ARE evidence for a case. They are the proof that a crime happened. The problem is that they don't tie the defendant to the acts.

The lawyers aren't supposed to be technical, but they should know their limitations and hire technical experts. But that also assumes the defendant can afford the defense, which is insanely expensive.

▲

protocolture 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>The messages ARE evidence for a case. They are the proof that a crime happened. The problem is that they don't tie the defendant to the acts.

Yep,

So they have a cop stand up in court.

"We read X messages" (Here they are look how exceptionally heinous they are)

"We then asked the service for the IP."

"We then asked the ISP to deanonymise it. "

"Heres the guy we found at that IP"

He signs a stat dec that using his brilliant super techno crime brain he has correctly attributed the messages to this human.

It sounds like the defense from there was: But your honor, there's no history of these messages etc etc.

Judge is not technically capable of reviewing the evidence. Defense probably not technically capable of reviewing the evidence either. Prosecution probably not capable either. They are all just playing out parts really.

After probably having dealt with hundreds of these, on the balance of probability like most courts do they just backed in the statement by the cop.

The end unless you can find some way to challenge the technical evidence. Which he did after some time.

▲

OutOfHere an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, they aren't. If your account gets stolen, you'll be found guilty, but in reality you didn't do the crime. No IP address tied you to the crime, and no real evidence tying you to the crime existed.

▲

sterlind 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

does Canada not have public defenders? I know they're overworked but, c'mon, surely they can do better than they did?

I want to see the transcripts.

▲

thephyber 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If you find them, let us know.

In the US public defenders don't have time to try cases. They are basically plea bargain assistants.

▲

throwaway17_17 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That depends mostly on the jurisdiction, the structure of public defense in said jurisdiction, and the quality, resourcing, and culture of the individual Public Denfender’s Office. I do understand the view from strictly statistical analysis, but there are subtleties (particularly, misdemeanors vs felonies) in how plea vs trial plays out in various parts of the US not captured by large granularity stats.

▲

sterlind 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

what happens if the defendant pleads not guilty? does the public defender not bother to show up to trial? do they not represent the defendant? what is this charade?

I found the verdict here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nspc/doc/2024/2024nspc4/2024nsp... but no transcript is given. it has to be requested, it seems.

	▲	qingcharles an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Public defenders will try your case if you demand trial; in fact, a lot of public defenders probably try more cases than paid attorneys. The problem is that public defenders generally are starter defense attorneys, they're in the job to get experience so they can eventually quit and take a cushy private role. And secondly, they have very little time to allocate to each case; if the defendant is stuck in jail, then they have even less time to visit the defendant and prepare any kind of useful defense or trial strategy. A public defender's primary strategy for their client is to, sadly, negotiate the best possible plea deal in the shortest amount of time to get the case off the docket. (This might actually be in the best interests of the defendant; most defendants are guilty of something in the charging document, even if not everything they've been likely over-charged with; the justice system isn't quite so broken that it scoops up a huge number of factually innocent persons)
	▲	thephyber 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Public defenders are required to build the best case they can, but the nature of a defense requires hiring experts to contradict the prosecution evidence. Without hiring experts, the public defender is just pounding the table or arguing the technicals of law.
	▲	gremlinunderway 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		thats not the verdict. Thats the sentencing decision, which just goes into a separate Judge's sentencing hearing and decisions on that.