Re: LAW: Bar Associations and Monopolies (Was: POL: Reaction to Microsoft Rul...

From: Gina Miller (
Date: Mon Apr 24 2000 - 15:51:35 MDT

He still is not allowed to use a computer, even since his release. He also
was invited to many computer security conference to speak. One was held on
NASA property, NASA discovered this, and would not allow him on their
property. (even though it is not illegal to have been convicted and to step
on gov. property)

> Mike Lorrey replies:
> > No, he didn't. Moreover, he was in jail for something like 3 years
before he was
> > even arraigned. They wouldn't let him have access to evidence, or
participate in
> > his defense, and he was refused access to simple electronic devices like
> > and calculators.
> puts a little different
> spin on this:
> Mitnick's trial had been delayed several times due its complexity,
> and often at the request of the defense.
> If the defense is requesting delays, that is not consistent with
> demanding a speedy trial. The defense doesn't get to drive the whole
> process, setting the timetable which all parties must follow, for their
> own convenience. They can demand a speedy trial and then both sides are
> handicapped by the rapidity of the proceedings. But once the defense
> starts requesting delays, the prosecution gets to do so as well.
> Randolph tried repeatedly to get Mitnick a computer so he could review
> evidence that reportedly includes witness statements totaling 1,400
> pages, 10 gigabytes of electronic evidence and 1,700 exhibits in all.
> But after one hearing, Randolph told reporters that Judge Pfaelzer
> "didn't seem to want to hear 'computer' and 'Mitnick' in the same
> sentence."
> The court ultimately allowed Mitnick access to a laptop, but it was
> in a room for attorney-client meetings, and he was always monitored by
> someone from Randolph's office. And there was no modem or phone line.
> So it wasn't that he was denied access to evidence, he was denied access
> to computers. From what I read here it implies that if his lawyer had
> simply printed out the relevant data on paper and carried it in, Mitnick
> could do whatever he wanted with it. But the lawyer wasn't allowed to
> bring in a computer until late in the proceedings.
> In the meanwhile, Mitnick has been serving out a 14-month sentence
> for violating his probation in the Digital break-in and eight months
> for a 1995 North Carolina charge of possession of an unauthorized
> access device.
> "Kevin's problem is that he has been convicted multiple times,"
> said journalist Markoff. "Whatever you think of his crime, he has
> tripped the relevant federal guidelines. And the judge gave him
> a break before. Now he's before her again for another series of
> federal crimes."
> He was denied bail, but he was a known flight risk. He had been a
> fugitive for three years until Shimomura caught him, and law enforcement
> couldn't count on the assistance of a top rank computer security expert
> to catch Mitnick next time. So I can fully understand the denial of bail.
> Plus it sounds like two years of his jail time was counted as working
> off previous sentences.
> Putting all this together, Mitnick has had a rough ride, but he has
> brought it on himself. He violated his probation and he fled from
> justice despite lenient treatment by the judges in his earlier arrests.
> Under those conditions no one could not expect kind treatment from the
> criminal justice system. At least some of his jail time was owed due
> to previous convictions, and he himself requested delays in his trial.
> The judges may have been excessively paranoid in keeping Mitnick away
> from phones and computers, but these are not technological people and
> it was hard for them to know what harm Mitnick might accomplish with
> access to this equipment. And these limitations do not prevent Mitnick
> from participating in his defense. For hundreds of years prisoners have
> gotten by without computers.
> Hal

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:47 MDT