As is widely reported in the media Ross Ulbricht was arrested, accused by the authorities of being Dread Pirate Roberts the online pseudonym of the owner of Silk Road(a Tor site selling illegal drugs).
I’ve seen several people claim that if anyone would write Ross a letter in jail expressing gratitude for running Silkroad, or referring to him as Dread Pirate Roberts this would then be used as evidence against him at trial.
This seems to me to be supremely unfair and unjust, after all I have no control over what the media prints. Is this true? Could prosecutors use correspondence containing claims from the mass media as evidence Ross is in fact Dread Pirate Roberts and ran the Silkroad?
If that ever happened his lawyer could challenge it and subpoena the letter writer into court to testify under oath, and if he was caught lying he could then be found guilty of perjury.
There’s no reason a letter to somebody from some random person saying they admire them for some criminal act would be legally admissible in a court of law. The writer has no way of knowing if that person actually committed any crimes so their letter is just hearsay.
It could be used as evidence (unless it’s from his lawyer – that is privileged communication).
2, But it its value as evidence will be argued in court, just like any piece of evidence, and how much weight to give it is a matter for the jury to decide.
A letter from a random person would be pretty worthless – the judge may even agree to exclude that from the trial. A letter from his wife, however, saying how glad he was able to support the family thru his drug sales, would be stronger evidence. But if that wife is in the midst of divorcing him, not such good evidence.
I think it depends largely on who the letter is to. A letter to the prisoner’s wife, doctor, or lawyer might not be admissible, just like a conversation with those people.
Exactly. A letter proves nothing. The contents may contain something that proves a somebody knew something, but then you would be able to subpoena that someone and ask them what they knew and how they knew it. “I read it in the papers” might simply bolster any defence contention that the prosecution had sabotaged the ability to get a fair trial.
Just 'cuz you read it in snail mail does not mean it is so.
I can’t see a single incoming letter being all that admissible. Suppose I just out of the blue wrote a letter to you praising you for the quality of the heroin you’re selling the kids at the local grade school? On the other hand, if there was a letter (email or snail mail) back and forth conversation between us and topics like that came up, that could be admissible.
The general rule is yes, correspondence to a prisoner CAN be used at trial. In this particular case, unless the letter-writer had personal knowledge, those letters are inadmissible. They don’t prove anything other than the fact that he was arrested and accused.