Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Should RIAA Investigators Have To Disclose Evidence?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the special-rules-for-special-people dept.

The Courts 216

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A technology battle is raging in UMG v. Lindor, a court case in Brooklyn. The issue at hand is whether the RIAA's investigator SafeNet (the company that acquired MediaSentry) now needs to disclose its digital files, validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates, software manuals, protocols, packet logs, source code, and other materials, so that the validity of its methods can be evaluated by the defense. SafeNet and the RIAA say no, claiming that the information is 'proprietary and confidential'. Ms. Lindor says yes, if you're going to testify in federal court the other side has a right to test your evidence. A list of what is being sought (pdf) is available online. MediaSentry has produced 'none of the above'. 'Put up or shut up' says one commentator to SafeNet."

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Disclose Evidence? (4, Insightful)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643040)

Maybe they are as they generally have no evidence anyway...

Re:Disclose Evidence? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643162)

Why should they have to present evidence? Oh right, the prevention of bills of attainder portion of the Constitution prevents them from bribing^Wlobbying Congress to pass a law so that their opponents automatically lose the lawsuits. Why haven't they had a law passed that makes it a felony to harass a major record label? That would solve most of their problems. Oh wait, they evidence again. Damn!

Re:Disclose Evidence? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643998)

Or it that there system is so messed up that is like a slot machine.

Exhibit A - Tom Mizzone declaration (5, Interesting)

rboatright (629657) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644876)

You know, I've read this piece before, but just now noticed that he claims that the TRACEROUTE that they ran from media sentry TO the ip address in question was stored on the computer that they are investigating....

which is silly on face. The computer (that they claim was Lindor's) didn't have a traceroute TO it from Media Sentry ON it...

So, clearly, the people producing these documents are -- just plain not competent.

In fact, DEFG and H all aren't on "lindor's computer"

uh.... And I'm sure that's been commented on before, but I just noticed it.

Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (1)

Lookin4Trouble (1112649) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643072)

IANAL, so obviously don't take my word as legal advice, but I was under the impression that discovery rules only pertained to criminal cases, not civil cases? Any lawyerly types care to chime in on this, maybe shed a bit of light on the subject?

Thanks

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (1)

vinn01 (178295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643182)



I was under the impression that a judge in civil cases has a lot of discretion. There is plenty of discovery orders in civil cases. While the judge may not agree to say "Let the other side see...", he may say "Show me, I want to see ...". In any case, some discovery can be filed as sealed documents. That would seem to apply here.

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644736)

I was under the impression that a judge in civil cases has a lot of discretion. There is plenty of discovery orders in civil cases. While the judge may not agree to say "Let the other side see...", he may say "Show me, I want to see ...". In any case, some discovery can be filed as sealed documents. That would seem to apply here.
The judge can't keep anything like that to himself, he would have to allow access to the defendant's lawyers and expert witnesses (but not to the defendant and the public). Lawyers and expert witnesses would obviously be in big trouble if anything leaked out.

On the other hand, there is now precedent that you can't hide behind "proprietary methods"; I think there was the case of a manufacturer of breathalyzer equipment that ran into this problem. Of course they can refuse to open up their "proprietary methods", but then any evidence based on these proprietary methods would be invalid. In case of the breathalyzer equipment, nobody could actually force them to open up their code, but in practice every case based on their equipment would have been dropped, and the police would never again have bought their equipment.

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (5, Insightful)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643186)

I was under the impression that discovery rules only pertained to criminal cases, not civil cases?
Surely the well documented RIAA deceit in relation to evidence in other cases should be enough to compel the Judge to grant this request, regardless of whether disclosure is mandatory?

How far does judicial credulousness stretch these days?

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (2, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643250)

surely ... the judge ...
Those words generally don't go together [slashdot.org] .

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (5, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643468)

If you're looking for prior examples, try the current U.S. Administration.

"We have the smoking gun on Iraq, but we can't show you until after we go to war."

"We have the evidence to prove these guys are terrorists but we can't show it to you. disregard the canadian."

"We aren't doing anything wrong. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (2, Interesting)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643204)

I also, ANAL, but if I recall correctly, it's a state to state matter. In some states, even in criminal cases, the defense doesn't allow for discovery - they only have to share exculpatory evidence. But the prosecutor gets to decide what is exculpatory. It's called "trial by ambush".

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (1)

BUTT-H34D (840273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643492)

"I also, ANAL"

Huh huh. Heh heh. You're like a dillhole miner or something.

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644236)

I also, ANAL, but if I recall correctly, it's a state to state matter. In some states, even in criminal cases, the defense doesn't allow for discovery - they only have to share exculpatory evidence. But the prosecutor gets to decide what is exculpatory. It's called "trial by ambush".

True, but wouldn't copyright violations would be tried in federal court, as they are granted by federal law?

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (5, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643232)

IANAL, so obviously don't take my word as legal advice, but I was under the impression that discovery rules only pertained to criminal cases, not civil cases? Any lawyerly types care to chime in on this, maybe shed a bit of light on the subject?

Nope, the amount of discovery in civil cases often dwarfs that of even the largest, most complex criminal cases, and the rules are similar. You can refuse to produce documents on certain bases, including that it involves proprietary information or business secrets, but you have to convince the judge of this, which can be tough. A lot of times the parties will enter into confidentiality agreements, where only the lawyers (and possibly expert witnesses) will gain access to the produced information, not the clients. I think it would be tough to convince the judge that a confidentiality agreement wouldn't protect them.

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (4, Interesting)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643484)

Yup - at work we have lots of systems that are subject to various government regulations, and which contain data that could become evidence in a lawsuit.

We take all kinds of care to document everything about these systems and their reliability, and we have retention schedules for everything and we follow them. While in a court case we might attempt to limit the scope of discovery we ultimately would be prepared to defend our data. Otherwise a computer log isn't evidence any more than a piece of paper typed up on a typewriter 10 minutes before the trial.

Looking at the laundry list, I saw one or two items that might have been a little broad, but most of this stuff is directly limited to the scope of the issues at hand and the reliability of the evidence. If there were 25 precedents that this particular software was bulletproof the plaintiffs might get the scope of discovery narrowed down a little further (maybe just to demonstrate that the software is the software that is considered reliable), but as things currently stand I'd be surprised if the judge didn't order the plaintiff to produce the supporting evidence or have their documentation ruled inadmissible (which would pretty-much gut their case).

IANAL though...

Backwards! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643290)

No, that's exactly backwards! IANAL, either, but discovery is very much a civil matter. Until recently, it's my understanding that the police didn't even have to disclose all of the evidence they found to the defense unless they planned to use it in court. In other words, if they found something that proved you weren't guilty, they didn't have to tell your lawyer.

Mind you, that's changed somewhat because people felt that was very wrong. But they still don't have the sweeping discovery powers that you can get in a civil case. In a civil case, you basically have to argue that it's equally available to the other side (e.g. public information anyone can look up without you having to do it for them), unduly burdensome (i.e. waste of time and money, unlikely to lead to usable evidence), or a protected communication (e.g. communication with your lawyer).

Because this is an issue in basically every civil case, it's even more complex than that. So talk to a lawyer if you want to understand something about it, because it's pretty screwball and rather expensive if you goof up.

Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (4, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643850)

And didn't DMCA suddenly make a criminal offence out of something that should have been a civil court matter. The stick has two ends. Criminalising something while bringing the perspective of jail, penalties, etc also brings a different standard of proof in most legal systems.

Please, keep digging your grave. :) (4, Interesting)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643084)

Keep playing little games like this, RIAA & MPAA, and you will find yourselves facing the Supreme Court.

Re:Please, keep digging your grave. :) (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643462)

Keep playing little games like this, RIAA & MPAA, and you will find yourselves facing the Supreme Court.

Or bankrupt and irrelevant. Any of those is fine with me, so long as we finally stop hearing about them.

Re:Please, keep digging your grave. :) (1)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643498)

Keep playing little games like this, RIAA & MPAA, and you will find yourselves facing the Supreme Court.

And going before our new more right-leaning and business-friendly SCOTUS is supposed to scare them.....how, exactly?

Re:Please, keep digging your grave. :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22644562)

The bribes.. I mean lobbying costs are a lot higher.

Re:Please, keep digging your grave. :) (2)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643670)

How much further do the RIAA have to dig before the John Does can start a class action RICO lawsuit?

Re:Please, keep digging your grave. :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22644760)

RICO, Oregon version [blogspot.com] previously discussed here. [slashdot.org] If you check the links and read you will see the case has been given class action status.

Re:Please, keep digging your grave. :) (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643860)

...a business friendly Supreme Court....

Re:Please, keep digging your grave. :) (2, Insightful)

inwo42 (1245506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644560)

The most fitting use I've heard of: Judge: Prosecution, please state your case methodology. RIAA: 1. Accuse randomly 2. 3. Profit

Disclose to defence at least (5, Interesting)

saikou (211301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643092)

While they certainly don't want to disclose anything, they will probably be forced to disclose it to defense, so claims can be validated and/or rebutted properly. Otherwise it's the same claim as SCO -- "I have tons of evidence you did very bad thing, but I won't show it to anyone, not even a judge"

Re:Disclose to defence at least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643538)

SCO did "have tons of evidence" and they just did not want to show it to anyone.

I saw, but I am not going to tell you what I saw, or when, or where.

So what do you think about that?

Anony

Re:Disclose to defence at least (1, Troll)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644682)

Did you read the RIAA's reply?
(Since the pdf is of a scanned document, any spelling errors are mine.)

"Rather, defendant's counsel appears to be engaged in a fishing expedition that this Court has already found to be improper. Specifically, much of the information that the defendant seeks is precisely the same information that she unsuccessfully sought when this Court denied her motion to compel and granted plaintiffs' motion for protective order on March 30, 2007. Defendant cannot obtain through the backdoor what she was unable to obtain through the front door."

Safenet's reply boils down to: Even the Defense has admitted that the information they want is proprietary and confidential and they have not satisfied the high burden of proof necessary to show their need.

Great! (4, Interesting)

CyberData4 (1247268) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643094)

That's one way to make sure they're all guilty....don't allow em to defend themselves....

Re:Great! (5, Insightful)

perdue (1153995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643268)

Works in Guantanamo!

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643972)

Yeah, NONE of those people were taken off a battlefield. Gitmo was the last legitimate action of this stupid "war on terror" fiasco.

Same song, Different tune (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643112)

This sounds like the same BS excuse from the breathalyzer manufacturers.
Proprietary techniques/technologies do NOT belong in the legal system because they are completely immune to scrutiny. They are unconstitutional IMHO, not being able to face your accuser etc.

Extortion (5, Insightful)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643128)

Without disclosing the hows, it would be extortion- otherwise I could sue you for taking my content and say, well my proprietary ways say you did, so pay up!

Re:Extortion (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644252)

I have no problem with this. However, I also have evidence that the board members of all of the big four record companies are guilty of murder. I'm not, however, at liberty to say who they killed, or what the evidence is (it's commercially sensitive), but I intend to bring civil prosecutions for murder against all of them and, under the same rules, expect to win.

'proprietary and confidential' (5, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643144)

Yeah I saw him kill her and recorded it on my camera, but im selling the footage so its...
Well I'm innocent and i have a video to show it but its...
I cant disclose what guns i had in my possession at the time of the murder as my guns are...

Theres no way something is too 'proprietary and confidential' to show a court of law!

Yes. (1, Informative)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643148)

Yes.

Re:Yes. (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643830)

me too!!1

No, they shouldn't (5, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643178)

But neither does the judge/jury have to consider the RIAA's claims that they have evidence but won't show it.

Re:No, they shouldn't (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643900)

In other words, "Only the evidence they want to be considered"?

Re:No, they shouldn't (1)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644046)

Anyone would think you're talking about a court of law here..

Re:No, they shouldn't (1)

Cait Sidhe (1026312) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644940)

As opposed to, say, a court of Kangaroos?

is there a reason.. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643218)

these douchebags haven't been thrown out of courtrooms and investigated on how they procure this information? this is fucking retarted and these judges need to have their heads examined. it's obvious what they are doing and the almighty U.S. law system allows them to continue these bullshit cases.

lick the nuts.

Smackdown (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643236)

They've gotten away with a lot, but I predict that the RIAA and their goons are about to receive a major legal smackdown on these issues. Whatever you may have against lawyers and courts, it seriously pisses them off if you try to fuck with their system like this. My guess, they're forced to disclose everything pertinent, and it will be shown in court that their methods are unsound as proof of what they're after. You heard it here first!

Re:Smackdown (2, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643434)

That makes no sense. It's another set of lawyers, working for RIAA, who are doing the "fucking with their system". So please don't try to claim that it's lawyers being offended who will right this matter. It's lawyers being paid lots of money to contort copyright and free speech, and often lawyers become legislators accepting lobbying support, who've created this legal morass out of what was once a much simpler set of copyright guidelines.

Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (4, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643262)

I remember a similar argument being used a while back by people convicted of drunk driving. They argued that their defense required access to the technical information about the breath-a-lizer, including the source and testing documentation.

If I remember right the judge in the case (Florida AFAIK) ruled in favor of the defendent. If the Breath-a-lizer company didn't turn over the requested documents, the defendent was off the hook. Don't know if the case has been overturned though.

Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (5, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643456)

I'm not sure it's the same case, but in the one I read about, the company that produced the unit was required to turn over the source code for independent verification and analysis. Apparently, it was a joke ... with comments like "this section is just for testing and shouldn't be shipped", with some major design flaws as well. It didn't even do a proper baseline measurement, and it's results could have been off by something like +/- 50 percent or something like that. I should go Google that case and see what eventually happened with it.

In any event, proprietary software shouldn't be when people's lives are on the line. That includes losing judgments on the order of a quarter million dollars (as happened in a recent RIAA case.)

Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (5, Informative)

glavenoid (636808) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643694)

Breathalyzer source code in criminal trials has come up on /. [slashdot.org] a few [slashdot.org] times. If you ask me, this sets a precedent that the "propriety technology" excuse can't be used to limit a defendant's right to examine all evidence against him/her. However, those were criminal cases, perhaps civil law doesn't follow the same legal precedents?

Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (3, Interesting)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643734)

That is an interesting point. I spoke to a Canadian judge recently and asked what the likly outcome would be of such a request if made in Canada.

His response what that it would be very unlikely to be granted. His reasoning (without being able to consult the actual laws) was that he heblives that the brethalyzer is an "approved" devise for measuring blood alcohol. This was set by the lawmakers, and it is his job to enforce the laws, which clearly say that this is an approved device.

If you have a problem with this, take it up with the law makers.

I found this to be quite interesting, thought I'd pas it along.

Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (3, Interesting)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644872)

Hrm, I think you're not taking into account 1) the fact that discovery decisions are made very much on the specific facts of a case, and thus hypothetical situations are practically a useless guide and 2) many, nay most, judges don't like being told they shouldn't know something, and might even get a perverse pleasure out of forcing the Plaintiffs to reveal everything, and finally 3) if a precedent is going to be set, the judge (especially Canadian ones that don't need to be elected but do need to keep the number of appeals down) will go overboard and bring in material that is only somewhat relevant, just to cover all the bases. It's been my indirect experience (I'm a law clerk, and not qualified to give out any legal advice, by the way, not a lawyer) that judges don't like attitude from lawyers, forget quickly what it was like to be a lawyer, and have no great liking for corporations.

More specifically, in the Discovery period, the adversarial lawyer can demand evidence that has a "semblance of relevance", just in case it might be relevant. If it's not really relevant the judge would rule it so in voir dire before a jury heard it. Of course, the Discovery may be more limited in the US, I don't know anything about that. Your friend the judge, talking about breathalysers, might change his mind if one of the lawyers provided, say, precedents from the US courts where the source and schematics of a breathalyser machine has already been opened up. Canadian Courts can accept US decisions as precedent if a Canadian judge hasn't already decided on an issue.

For the amount they're pursuing... (2, Informative)

pyrr (1170465) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643272)

...relative to the income and and standards of living of the people they're pursuing, I feel it would be an outrage if they didn't have to provide more.

Then again, civil cases just require a preponderance of the evidence to be in favor of one party or another. If the defense does its job in establishing doubts as to the RIAA's methodology, it would probably behoove the RIAA to disclose its methodologies in great detail to back up its claims of investigative accuracy, which would then subject them to more scrutiny and attempts to find fault. Does evidence really count for much of anything if it can't be substantiated? I think that any competent judge would, in weighing the evidence presented, be compelled to largely discount the RIAA's evidence when confronted with all the times they've been documented to have been dead-wrong, if they don't demonstrate how their evidence holds water.

Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (5, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643316)

How can evidence be considered valid if the source of how it is obtained is not disclosed?
If this was anything except technology, the judge would laugh them out of the court.

Policeman: "He was going 11MPH above the speed limit."
Judge: "How were you able to do that?"
Policeman: "Sorry, but that's proprietary information. If leaked, it would damage our ability to catch speeders.


This has been tested on a slightly different case. Florida police can't use breathalyzers without providing the source [news.com] . Unless you can show that there is no trickery in your technology, it shouldn't be held admissible in a court of law.

Re:Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (3, Funny)

Steve1952 (651150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643520)

Surely the RIAA's word is good enough for the court. No need to actually provide evidence...

Damn! I almost said this with a straight face, let me try again!

Re:Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (3, Informative)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643530)

Unless you can show that there is no trickery in your technology, it shouldn't be held admissible in a court of law.
Precisely. In the true technical legal sense, such evidence is hearsay. Thus it is a priori inadmissible, unless you can demonstrate to a judge, on an item by item basis why it should be admissible. Can't do that, or you're afraid to? Too bad. It is exactly the same thing as trying to get "Expert Testimony" admitted, when you won't demonstrate what the expert's credentials are, and what relevance it has to the case. In such an event, an expert's testimony is inadmissible as well.

This argument is really just claiming that the same rigorous standards of evidence should be applied to technology as well.

Beyond reasonable doubt (0)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643736)

The Florida breatalyzer thing probably oversteps the mark of being reasonable unless the level was within a few % of the legal limit. You could always keep on requesting more information until the situation becomes absurd:
* Give us the source and schematics.
* Now give us the chip design details for all the chips used in the device.
* Give us the source for the compiler used to generate the firmware.
* Now we want an expert witness stating that electrons will actually flow through these chips....

The judge goofed here and should have requested that the brethalyser makers provide a testing certificate to show that the device actually works as specced and provides a reasonable reading. That's all that matters and finer details do not matter.

Being absurd can invalidate any evidence. You could call into doubt that an eye witness can actually see, or that the court house actually exists (perhaps the witness fell asleep and it could all just be a dream). That's where the "reasonable doubt" test comes in - to smack down really stupid lines of argument.

But back to the RIAA. They should have to provide proof that their evidence is of sufficient quality to meet the courst's test of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Re:Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (5, Funny)

rasputin465 (1032646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643760)

These legal claims by the RIAA just blow my mind. I'm in the physics community, and I'm just trying to picture how these type of statements would play out in my arena.

Me: ...and as a result, we have discovered
[blank].
Physicist in audience: Sorry, can you explain your methods?
Me: No

[5 seconds of silence]
Entire conference hall bursts into laughter

Re:Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644564)


>How can evidence be considered valid if the source of how it is
>obtained is not disclosed?

Some evidence stands "on its face" regardless of its source or the motivation for its introduction. The evidence itself can be tested. The legality of its acquisition (valid discovery in a civil case) can be addressed, and that is the nature of the complaint being reported and discussed by the amateurs at Slashdot.

A criminal case in Florida is a different beast from a copyright case in a Federal District Court. About the only thing they have in common is the basic fact that these cases fall under rules of more-or-less the same government.

If a jury can be convinced that the evidence is reasonably correct and was reasonably required, that's all that is needed. IF Lindor can collect this other evidence in the petition, that's their discovery, considered separately.

That's how civil cases go. Sometimes literally with a truckload of file boxes involved.

Discovery is a game of getting as big a pile of paper on YOUR table as THEY have on THEIR table.

Re:Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (1)

brandonbradley (950049) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644908)

Of course in the case of a officer pulling you over for speeding, his "expert opinion" of how fast you are going is often admitted in court. I've even had an officer admit that he "visually estimated" my speed during the initial hearing, and the judge let it stand since he was an "expert with training." That said, when I returned for the actual trial, I got another judge since the one that had been hearing the case had been impeached (I think that is the term) on charges of funding Gun running and smuggling. The replacement judge let me take traffic school instead which is what I had originally asked the first judge to allow. Point is though that "Expert opinion" is one way that having to document actual facts can be avoided. I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA tried some variation of this tactic.

No, they can drop their case (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643318)

Perhaps RIAA doesn't have to submit it's evidence, but if it doesn't wish to do so, it should be ruled inadmissable. Can't have it both ways.

only if you're a fan of the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643354)

In my copy it says:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Even if its a civil case, I'd argue the 5th and 7th amendments guarantee analogous rights for civil cases.

division by zero error (3, Insightful)

themushroom (197365) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643394)

Hard to reveal evidence if you don't have any. And it's happened a couple times where when pressed the RIAA admitted they didn't have enough to go to trial with. No wonder they want this to be on a need-to-know basis, since they need to know before they start.

What do you think? (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643410)

This motion may well come up for a conference or oral argument, or further briefing, so it would be interesting to see what you folks think about why these kinds of items are (or are not) necessary to test the validity of MediaSentry's methods and procedures.

Re:What do you think? (3, Insightful)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643474)

How could it not be necessary? In order to be considered as legal evidence in a court of law, the method of gathering said evidence must be validated. This isn't law, it's just common sense! How can they possibly say "We have evidence you wronged us, but we can't show you" and that's that?

Re:What do you think? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643542)

I think if they won't disclose, then that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to argue or reference anything resulting from that. So they'd essentially have to drop their claim, since they'd no longer be able to claim the respondent was sharing files. If they want to claim that, then they need to reveal the methods used to determine that, and supporting documentation. This idea of "It's proprietary so you'll have to take our word for it," is a load of bull. If they won't subject their methods to scrutiny, well then I'm going to have to believe it is because they are flawed.

Re:What do you think? (4, Insightful)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643658)

A good way to answer this is to mention that one algorithm for "fingering" IP addresses which violate could be to simply take a list of every IP that a certain ISP has and put them in an array. Next, you could randomize the ordering of that array and then select every 1000th entry of that array. Voila, you've now got a list of culprits. If the process is completely hidden from the judges/jury and only the results are presented, then this algorithm is as good as any in determining who is stealing music.

Absolutely (3, Interesting)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643664)

I, for one, can't wait to see what the RIAA has in their "little black box." Right now, there are plenty of questions from the technical side that leave me wondering how their evidence will hold up:

1. Are they using a homegrown sniffer that might be prone to capturing bad data, or are they using proven tools, like tcpdump, ethereal/Wireshark, etc.?

2. Are they synchronizing their time against a public NTP server before they go on their fishing expeditions? Or is their machine's time (and thus their subpoena for the user of a particular IP address at a particular time) perhaps off by a couple of hours?

3. Do they actually download the file being shared, or some portion thereof? Do they analyze that file to see if it is what they think it is? Or are they still relying on file names as some sort of proof?

The answers to these questions, among many others, are fundamental to the defense's ability to mount, well, a defense. Does there exist in civil law an equivalent to the confrontation clause, the "right to face one's accuser?" In these matters, it seems as though the accuser is some software package at BayTSP or SafeNet, that nobody knows anything about. You shouldn't be able to win a judgment against another party based on screen shots and testimony from one bogus "expert."

Re:Absolutely (3, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644112)

Of course there is the other issue. How they go about choosing which person they will pursue. How many request for client data based upon an IP address have been sent out without an attempt to sue the named account holder. What was the basis for the selection, the persons inability to pay for a legal defence or a preponderance of evidence.

Based upon their history, the ability of their chosen victim to financially support a defence against their criminal actions, apart from the odd glitch, seems to be the main factor in deciding who they will attempt to extort a payment from.

I wonder if they also searched for infected PCs as that is a viable defence for the owner of the PC, but they failed to advise those people that their PC was infected, technically making the investigators an accessory after the fact, a criminal offence.

What do they need? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22643712)

Well, somehow I would make the point to the judge that the Chain of Evidence is absolutely required.

So it's very, very important to have information on who handled the information, what machines handled them, what programs handled the data and who all had access to it (I suspect that they don't _have_ much of this information, if not, that should be used against them in court).

On the other hand, if I can make a guilt-detecting program that's "proprietary and confidential" and the Court is fine with that, what we need instead is a list of RIAA executives and their children, sorted by who has the most money...

Re:What do you think? (5, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643720)

I'm not a lawyer, and I barely understand my legal rights to facing my accuser in this digital world, but I do know this:

We don't have any prior examples of this specific niche technology at work. There's no baseline of acceptable "industry standard" out there - every bit of information about these products is held so closely to the chest of these businesses that we just do not know where the hell this data comes from and, more specifically, we don't know how this data is corroborated with ISPs to find these people who are supposedly committing the infringements. Plus, we have no idea of what the failure rate of this entire process has been. On top of all of that, there is no independent analysis of this method.

If the RIAA litigation team was an inventor, this whole ordeal would be nothing short of them running around screaming about how they've invented perpetual motion, and then not letting anyone independently verify that the machine works.

Re:What do you think? (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643788)

We don't have any prior examples of this specific niche technology at work. There's no baseline of acceptable "industry standard" out there - every bit of information about these products is held so closely to the chest of these businesses that we just do not know where the hell this data comes from and, more specifically, we don't know how this data is corroborated with ISPs to find these people who are supposedly committing the infringements. Plus, we have no idea of what the failure rate of this entire process has been. On top of all of that, there is no independent analysis of this method. If the RIAA litigation team was an inventor, this whole ordeal would be nothing short of them running around screaming about how they've invented perpetual motion, and then not letting anyone independently verify that the machine works.
Well said.

It is hard to imagine someone coming to federal court, asking the Court to accept its methods, and refusing to allow the Court to know what its methods are.

The only people I have ever met who have that much stupidity and that much arrogance are the RIAA's lawyers.

Re:What do you think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22644886)

Only excuse I can see them using offhand would be if they had licensed PATENTED technology for use in their investigations and the license aggreement bars them from showing anything they have licensed. In which case they should have to identify the technology via discovery and then the patent owners can be subpoenaed. Of course IANAL and therefore, certainly not a patent lawyer. It would seem they are just trying the same BS as other posters have mentioned was used in some breathalyzer tests, it should be perhaps pointed out in court that this arguement has failed before and that said evidence was thrown out in some cases and the tech information delivered in others, ie more legal research.

Re:What do you think? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643798)

It doesn't take a tech geek to understand that it is necessary.

The question is one of whether MediaSentry can be trusted that the evidence produced was gathered in a means that is in accordance with law, and that does not have flaws in methodology that could cause the evidence produced to be incorrect.

If the defendant is given no opportunity to examine the evidence-gathering methodology, then the evidence should be taken as hearsay, since it is only the word of MediaSentry that validates the evidence.

Obviously civil and criminal court are two different beasts, and some evidence that is inadmissible in criminal court is admissible in civil court. But nonetheless, MediaSentry should be forced to provide their methodology -- only then can the court be sure that the evidence they have provided is valid. Even if it's disclosed to limited parties and covered by confidentiality agreement, this should be the bare minimum standard for any evidence in dispute.

Re:What do you think? (3, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643982)

What about the recent case where the driver got to investigate all source code for the breathalyzer? I had heard (perhaps wrongly) that several such cases are dropped because the breathalyzer companies don't want to present the evidence. http://www.news.com/Police-Blotter-Breathalyzer-code-must-be-disclosed/2100-1030_3-6227951.html [news.com] Dunno what weight this has between jurisdictions but it may be useful.

Re:What do you think? (4, Interesting)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644062)

Whatever technologies that companies are using to look for people are incredibly sketchy. I have received 6 threatening letters from the MPAA. Four of them were legitimate (overbugeted hollywood crap anyway), but two of them were completely bogus. When I got my second completely bogus threat, I attempted to track this company down.

It turns out that between the time when the alleged sharing occured, and when I got the letter, the company had changed names 3 times (or there were a large number of dummy companies that had contracted eachother out or something, it is really hard to tell the difference in these situations). When I finally tracked down a phone number for the building that these guys were supposedly working in, I called it. A machine picked up (customized with the name of the company and everything), but no one was in and the voicemailboxes on every extension were full.

Just take a look at the Media Defender leaks. These companies are often engaged in illegal activity, from fraud to extortion. They are not an industry that you want to trust to give you accurate information. These people have nothing to gain by making their scanners have more accurate results, they just want to see more results, so of course you should be able to assess their techniques (especially their source code) to make sure everything is in order.

Re:What do you think? (1)

Aegis Runestone (1248876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644170)

According to straight law as I can remember. They must present some sort of evidence for their claims. Otherwise, their claims are as good as hearsay evidence: nothing at all.

Re:What do you think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22644402)

Start with testing. System-level testing is fundamental to any software application, because bugs can occur at all kinds of levels, and there are whole categories of errors that aren't detectable - at all, no matter how good you are - merely by examining the code or running it in a development environment.

How do we know that testing has been done? It's recorded. There's a big detailed document somewhere describing the test setup, listing every step of the test - down to every key pressed and move of the mouse, with precise dates and times - and precisely what happened. If that document doesn't exist, then the application hasn't been tested, no matter how much they claim it has. And if it hasn't been tested, it can't be trusted.

Of course this document will be digitally timestamped and signed off by at least one manager. That manager should be willing to appear in court and swear that, to his certain knowledge, the document was produced and stored exactly as it says, and hasn't been tampered with since. If he's not willing to do that, then - well, the document should be presumed a forgery, and we're back to the "untested" case.

This document will take shortcuts - it'll refer to test plans, sample data, operating manuals, you name it - so you need those as well, to verify that the testing is fair (e.g. they haven't rigged the inputs to make sure it passes). There will also be operating and procedural manuals that describe how the test plans were produced, how they were validated, how (specifically) the test record was produced and how we can be sure that it's genuine (i.e. it really does describe what it says it does, it hasn't just been written up by some guy to say the right thing). There will be names attached to some of these documents, and these people may be required to testify as to the provenance of various stages of this whole paper trail.

If they argue that this information is proprietary, I'm sure the law offers ways around that. Perhaps the court could appoint an independent auditor or something for parts of it. But mostly I'd suspect they're stalling for time while they fake up the documents, which is why you need to haul in at least one of the signoff authorities themselves and get him to perjure himself if necessary. Enjoy.

Do they even have the right? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643450)

Can a US citizen just higher an "investigator" to pry into someone else's personal business in the hope of finding evidence of a crime? If so, that may be a profitable business.

Re:Do they even have the right? (1)

glavenoid (636808) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643842)

Short answer, yes.

Private investigators do this all the time. Information can be obtained in any way that doesn't break any existing laws. *Wiretapping* is out, rifling through one's trash for incriminating evidence (provided that the trash is not located on personal property) is OK. Anybody can hire someone to do this for them, however a private investigator needs to be licensed and bonded in most (if not all) states.

I'll leave the reason why wiretapping above is enclosed in asterisks as an exercise to the reader...

A difficult situation... (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643452)

Even if their methods are sound, diclosing them can lead to better defenses in the P2P community. While I think non-commetcial filesharing should be legal, that is a different battle.

On the other habd, their methods may be completely unsound, their evidence may not actually be evidence (file sice and name, e.g. are not enough to identify the contents of a file), and their experts may just be incompetent enough to not see where they are wrong.

I think, hard as it is on them, full disclosure of their methods is needed. In the specific case also full disclosure on who handled the data is needed. If they cannot meet these standards, then they should not be allowed to introduce their evidence. The problem is that it is far too easy to lie or collect evidence illegaly otherwise.

Re:A difficult situation... (1)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643722)

You're right that full disclosure is the only way, I think. After all, the problem of disclosing methods leading to better defence against them doesn't mean that forensic scientists can refuse to publish their methods. The fact that criminals know about the latest forensic techniques of course means that they will be a lot more careful about their behaviour. Imagine, for example, that you could identify someone by DNA but never had to reveal how you did so. DNA could remain a proprietary law-enforcement tool, and criminals might never work out that it was a root from a fallen hair, or sloughed skin cells, or semen that led to their identification. But equally, law enforcement could then say "we identified that person but we don't have to tell you how" and it turns out that they did it because the suspect smelled the same as an aftershave lingering at the crime scene. Visible methodology cuts down on the possibility of unsafe conviction.

If you can't hide methods in criminal cases where the stakes are life and death, you certainly shouldn't be able to do so in civil cases involving intellectual property.

Of course they do! (1)

Captain Sarcastic (109765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643500)

Unless, of course it turns out that they actually HAVE become a Federal agency while nobody was looking...

Just like the Breathalyzer cases (5, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643532)

Remember when it started getting around that people were beating DUI charges by requesting the source code of the machine? If that was reasonable, this is a slam-dunk. The basic right to confront your accuser is one of the most important of the rights we have. If the defendant doesn't have the right to attack the evidence presented against him, he is effectively denied due process.

It's your case, RIAA. Put up or shut up.

Re:Just like the Breathalyzer cases (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643740)

you actually do NOT have the right to confront your accusor.

in many states (maybe even all, by now?) when you get a speeding ticket, ANY cop can show up in court and be 'the accusor'. its fake, but our system is built on fakeness, many times ;(

its designed to GET you, not to give you FAIRNESS.

the old trick of changing your court date to try to lose the traffic cop in the shuffle does not work anymore. and so since that is 'broken' I see no reason why our 'justice' system isn't also similarly broken, to their advantage.

Re:Just like the Breathalyzer cases (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643886)

in many states (maybe even all, by now?) when you get a speeding ticket, ANY cop can show up in court and be 'the accusor'. its fake, but our system is built on fakeness, many times ;(

Interesting, I'd never heard that. I'd like to see it go to the Supreme Court, because I could see them having a problem with it.

Alternately, I'd ask the cop that does show up the same questions I'd ask the actual cop. "What was the angle of your car relative to the traveling vehicles?" "How much traffic was there?" etc. If the cop who shows up is comfortable answering "I don't know" for all his testimony, go for it.

its designed to GET you, not to give you FAIRNESS. the old trick of changing your court date to try to lose the traffic cop in the shuffle does not work anymore. and so since that is 'broken' I see no reason why our 'justice' system isn't also similarly broken, to their advantage.

The old 'changing your court date' trick wasn't about fairness either, rather a loophole around the justice system. I don't agree with the method they've chosen to use - I'd have simply worked with judges to be a lot more harsh on changing court dates, and working them to ensure the traffic cop is there.

Discovery of this type happens all the time (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643600)

This is not new terrain. The evidence can be examined under restrictions so the "proprietary and confidential" information doesn't make its way out of the confines of the case. Frankly, this is just standard legal maneuvering for a case like this. The test is whether the discovery methods will be considered germaine to the validity of the RIAA's case. If so, the court will likely allow discovery of these techniques.

This is standard civil procedure (4, Insightful)

plsuh (129598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643692)

Folks,

IANAL, but I have been an expert witness in many legal proceedings in Federal courts. As a part of discovery, you *have* to give the other side your raw data and details of your methodology. Otherwise, the judge is almost certain to throw out your testimony, as the other side has no way of discovering the weak spots in your case. I was involved with one case where the judge sanctioned one of the opposing experts and it took us three tries to get a decent set of data and models out of them. This had a very negative effect on the credibility of the other side's expert, which pretty well torpedoed their case. (They won as a matter of law, but damages were negligible.) Mind you, the data and models are generally covered by a protective order to maintain confidentiality, but it's so common that the wording is almost boilerplate. SafeNet and the RIAA don't have a leg to stand on here, and I can't imagine why they're bothering to oppose this unless they're pulling an SCO -- in which case, the judge should slap them down HARD.

--Paul

Re:This is standard civil procedure (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643862)

IANAL, but I have been an expert witness in many legal proceedings in Federal courts. As a part of discovery, you *have* to give the other side your raw data and details of your methodology. Otherwise, the judge is almost certain to throw out your testimony, as the other side has no way of discovering the weak spots in your case. I was involved with one case where the judge sanctioned one of the opposing experts and it took us three tries to get a decent set of data and models out of them. This had a very negative effect on the credibility of the other side's expert, which pretty well torpedoed their case. (They won as a matter of law, but damages were negligible.) Mind you, the data and models are generally covered by a protective order to maintain confidentiality, but it's so common that the wording is almost boilerplate. SafeNet and the RIAA don't have a leg to stand on here, and I can't imagine why they're bothering to oppose this unless they're pulling an SCO -- in which case, the judge should slap them down HARD.
You're 100% correct, Paul. Now let's see what the judges in this case do. They have previously allowed the RIAA's "expert" to testify as an expert [blogspot.com] even though he admittedly satisfied NONE of the Daubert reliability standards, and even though he admitted that all of the materials upon which he was relying -- the printouts MediaSentry would like us to accept as gospel -- likewise failed to satisfy ANY of the Daubert reliability standards.

Re:This is standard civil procedure (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644172)

that is true, the defense has the right to all your evidence you in a case before you present it, and collection is available to and if you refuse to give it up its well within the judges right to throw the evidence due to failure to comply. The RIAA knows their collection, testing and things arn't enough to even win in a small claims court so they will fight as hard as possible to prevent giving the data up.

What I don't get (1)

vmxeo (173325) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643744)

Isn't here a legal standard as to what procedures are acceptable in court when presenting evidence? A legal test that determines if a relatively new investigative technique is admissable as evidence if enough experts view it as reliable? How can Media Sentry present their evidentiary procedures as both propritary to prevent it's disclosure, yet admissable due to its being widely-accepted? It is, prima facie, a direct contridiction.

Re:What I don't get (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643938)

Isn't here a legal standard as to what procedures are acceptable in court when presenting evidence? A legal test that determines if a relatively new investigative technique is admissable as evidence if enough experts view it as reliable? How can Media Sentry present their evidentiary procedures as both propritary to prevent it's disclosure, yet admissable due to its being widely-accepted? It is, prima facie, a direct contr[a]diction.
That's my question.

hogwash (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643866)

They don't want to disclose anything because like Darl's lawsuit, the court will find out that the whole suit is a bunch of hogwash.

Dirty Business (3, Funny)

core_dump_0 (317484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643936)

Lindor: Show me the evidence!

SafeNet: I'm afraid that's proprietary and confidential.

Lindor: If you don't show me the evidence, I'll demand it in court!

SafeNet: Uh oh, hold on, I'll get it...

RIAA: Don't do it, Boys!

SafeNet: But this is just one stupid lawsuit! If we don't show the evidence our whole sch..., I mean, "business model" will be over!

Lindor: Business model? What?

RIAA: Did SafeNet just say that? No, Ms. Lindor, they didn't. Hey, look over there!

State secrets? (1)

CrazyDrumGuy (836427) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643960)

They should just try the State Secrets privilege [wikipedia.org] . "The terrorists want to take our freedom... and our mp3s!"

New Era of digital proof (1)

VeteranNoob (1160115) | more than 6 years ago | (#22643992)

This is going to be interesting. In this age of technology and computerization, the rules for evidence credentials are changing drastically.

The potential for abuse is there. When log files can be forged and photos doctored with ease, at what point do we lose trust in the data? Proving that a footprint matches a particular shoe is a no-brainer. However, prove to somebody that the IP address you found in the logs of your hacked server weren't actually left there intentionally as a decoy. Clever as the hacker is, he even used the IP address of another well-known hacker so that there is no question of the MO.

SafeNet now needs to disclose its digital files, validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates, software manuals, protocols, packet logs, source code, and other materials, so that the validity of its methods can be evaluated by the defense.

If video footage of a crime in-the-act is caught, should it reasonably be expected that all of the above information about the digital camcorder be provided to validate the evidence? The storage media also? .. and the computer used to view and process?

To mitigate the problem of abuse somewhat, a third-party could carry out the investigation. In this case, it seems the RIAA have done that. To what extent will they be required to prove their evidence? And to what extent will the jury even understand? Should we expect that every future case involving a computer require an expert witness in the area of electrical engineering to certify what the processor did? Obviously that's an absurd example; But where's the line? Perhaps with the jury.

I despise the RIAA and want to see the defendants have every avenue available to them for proving their innocence. But at some point it can just get absurd and it becomes a burden on the judicial system and taxpayers.

Re:New Era of digital proof (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644452)

If video footage of a crime in-the-act is caught, should it reasonably be expected that all of the above information about the digital camcorder be provided to validate the evidence? The storage media also? .. and the computer used to view and process?

No, but they'd reasonably ask to see the actual footage... not the result of a face recognition system and a copy of the suspect's driver's license. And if photography were only a decade or three old, and had been known to photograph the wrong person?

I suspect that the demands are probably more than they need, and I suspect they don't expect to get all they're asking for, but I don't think it's unreasonable to demand more details than you would of a videotape.

Re:New Era of digital proof (1)

rossz (67331) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644520)

Video footage is an old and well understood technology. With modern advances like digital storage, the evidence could be challenged on the grounds that it was tampered with, but if you can't prove the video was tweaked, the images of you buggering that puppy are going to be admitted as evidence.

What is going on in the music industry is completely different. They state they have technology that can track down file traders. This is not old technology that has been previously tested in court. This is something brand new, yet they want us to take their word for it that it works perfectly. We just have to trust them. Considering how they do business, especially the accounting side of it, I choose not to trust them. In fact, considering their past history (like being convicted of price fixing multiple times) I think it's a safe bet to say the music industry is a bunch of dishonest, lying sacks of shit who would sell out their own mothers for a buck.

RIAA's pseudocode (4, Funny)

SMacD (1140995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644114)

BastardThieves(){
    for( i=0, i lessthan infinity, i++ ){
        generate random IP address
        assign name "John Doe #i"
        serve court order
    }
}

Um... er (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644226)

Um by law don't they *have* to present or else basically STFU? Its not like you can sight unseen. a grokker

Jury of "Fact" (1)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644442)

What a flashback! As i remember and understand, this is rather to do with separation of power between Judge and Jury. If the evidence and testimony (hearsay rule) were to be crossed examined, the jury must be provided with "facts." After all, one can argue, evidence to be sufficient in submitting in court must be disclosed before the jury.

*1796, a statute in North Carolina made it unlawful, "in delivering a charge to the petit-jury, to given an opinion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proved," since that was "the true office and province of the jury." In the nineteenth century, a number of state statutes took away the judge's right to comment on evidence.**

  *Laws N. Car. 1796, ch. 4
**L.M. Friedman's A History of American Law (published 1973, 1985, 2005)

obvious rebuttal (3, Interesting)

drfireman (101623) | more than 6 years ago | (#22644510)

I guess if someone were accusing me of something, and they told a judge that they had some top-secret trust-me evidence that proved my guilt, I'd have little choice but to introduce my own top-secret trust-me evidence. I'm pretty sure by the time I was done the RIAA would be implicated in the deaths of Jimmy Hoffa and JFK.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>