Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
> If there was enough evidence to demonstrate that he attempted to murder someone, why wasn't he charged and convicted of it?

Wikipedia suggests this was because he was already sentenced to double life imprisonment. Clearly prosecutors should not waste time pursuing charges that won't really impact a criminal's status, do you disagree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Trial

If they don't "waste time pursuing charges that won't really impact" the sentence then the unproven allegations should not be allowed to impact the sentence. You can't have it both ways.
What a lot of people are overlooking is that there were two separate indictments in two separate courts with two separate prosecution teams.

In one indictment, in a New York federal court, he was charged with several crimes, but not murder-for-hire. In the other indictment, in a Maryland federal court, he was charged just with murder-for-hire.

The case in New York went to trial first. The murder-for-hire evidence was introduced in that court as part of trying to prove some of the elements of the other charges.

For example to prove a charge of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise one of the elements is that the person occupied "a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management". Evidence that a person is trying to hire hitmen to protect the enterprise is evidence that they occupy such a role.

After the convictions and sentencing in the New York trial were upheld on appeal, the prosecutors in Maryland dropped their case because he was then in jail, for life, with no possibility of parole. They said it was a better use of resources to focus on cases where justice had not yet been served.

loading story #42795661
You keep claiming these are unproven allegations despite this being demonstrably untrue and others repeatedly pointing that out all over this thread.
loading story #42795558