# Notorious Hacker Caught! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 9, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194 "2008-10-09T17:49:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/21 "2008-10-09T21:33:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What I need is a clear and unambiguous statement that the e-mails were state business and not personal. It’s not enough to say, “Hey, these were from her aides,” or even “These were from the Lt. Governor,” because that alone doesn’t mean squat. Why is it my job to do the investigation? Don’t we have people who are, you know, \*paid \*to do that sort of thing? I can’t give you the clear and ambiguous statement you’re asking for, and _it’s not my job to do so._ It’s pretty obvious you’re trying for the “gotcha ya!” instead of addressing the issue. There’s clearly enough evidence to do further investigation- why isn’t it happening? This was a private email account. There’s a good chance that it was being used for official business. Why was the hacker tracked down so doggedly, when most hacked personal email accounts are considered to be lost, with no effort spent to track down the hacker? **Bricker** , you can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going “la-la-la I can’t hear you”, but that still doesn’t keep this situation from stinking to high heaven, and you know it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/22 "2008-10-09T21:35:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are you suggesting she’s co-opting employees of the State of Alaska to work on her campaign? Because I’m pretty sure that’s illegal too. Well, that’s certainly not the issue under discussion. You want to accuse her of that, then I’d want to see evidence of THAT offense. Look, it’s not a difficult question. You said: > [@](#): > > And you’ve not even mentioned that Palin shouldn’t have been using that email in the first place. I want to know what your evidence for that statement is. So, sure, let’s assume, _arguendo_, that the substance of her email was asking her staff to help on her campaign. That has no relevance to the issue of the legitimacy of her e-mail usage. So, AGAIN: was there official business e-mail in the account? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/23 "2008-10-09T21:36:30Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Why is it my job to do the investigation? Don’t we have people who are, you know, \*paid \*to do that sort of thing? > > I can’t give you a clear and ambiguous statement you’re asking for, and _it’s not my job to do so._ There’s clearly enough evidence to do further investigation- why isn’t it happening? > > This was a private email account. There’s a good chance that it was being used for official business. Why was the hacker tracked down so doggedly, when most hacked personal email accounts are considered to be lost, with no effort spent to track down the hacker? > > **Bricker** , you can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going “la-la-la I can’t hear you”, but that still doesn’t keep this situation from stinking to high heaven, and you know it. Well, then you ought to be saying “There’s a chance that there was official business e-mail in the account, and we should investigate further,” instead of asserting it as a proven fact, don’t you think? And why was the hacker tracked so doggedly? Because of the high-profile of the offense. Most hacked e-mail accounts aren’t national news. This one was. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/24 "2008-10-09T21:42:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, that’s certainly not the issue under discussion. You want to accuse her of that, then I’d want to see evidence of THAT offense. > > Look, it’s not a difficult question. You said: > > I want to know what your evidence for that statement is. So, sure, let’s assume, _arguendo_, that the substance of her email was asking her staff to help on her campaign. That has no relevance to the issue of the legitimacy of her e-mail usage. > > So, AGAIN: was there official business e-mail in the account? Correction: **Lightnin’** said that. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/25 "2008-10-09T21:45:44Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Why is it my job to do the investigation? Don’t we have people who are, you know, \*paid \*to do that sort of thing? Nobody’s asking you to don a cape, smoke a briar pipe and examine everything with a giant magnifying glass, but how about actually getting your facts on straight before shooting your mouth off. That’d be good. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/26 "2008-10-09T21:46:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So far, you’ve danced around that with vague words that strongly hint at guilt, but don’t actually come out and say it. Usually, when I see weasel words like that, I think that someone’s preparing a future defense of, “Well, technically, I didn’t actually accuse her of X…” > > So, AGAIN: was there official business e-mail in the account? There is none so blind as he who will not see. ---
**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/27 "2008-10-09T21:54:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Guys, help me write something to Arnold asking for his help for my campaign appearances.” > > “OK, Sarah, how about this…?” You can see the list of emails in her inbox yourself at [wikileaks](http://wikileaks.org/wiki/VP_contender_Sarah_Palin_hacked). This is the heading on the Schwarzenegger email. Randall Ruaro is now Palin’s Deputy chief of staff. > [@Wikileaks](#): > > Ruaro, Randall P (GOV) > Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger / Container Tax > Thu, 8/28/08 12KB Here are the emails listed from Michael Nizich, who was Palin’s acting chief of staff and is now her official chief of staff. I’m sure they were just kibbutzing. You know, about the confidential ethics matters relating to the Kardashians… > [@Wikileaks](#): > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > RE: Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans > Fri, 8/22/08 42KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > another records request > Fri, 8/15/08 5KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > Attachments > FW: Capitalizing on coal reserves, Crow Tribe strikes deal for $7B > Tue, 8/12/08 10KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > FW: Special session press release > Fri, 8/8/08 29KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > FW: CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter > Thu, 8/7/08 5KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > Attachments > FW: John Harris’s response to Lyda Green > Thu, 8/7/08 68KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > RE: Request for Information and Documents > Thu, 8/7/08 10KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > FW: CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter > Thu, 8/7/08 3KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > Attachments > FW: Request for Information and Documents > Thu, 8/7/08 525KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > Attachments > FW: Memorandum of Law > Thu, 8/7/08 669KB > > Nizich, Michael A (GOV) > Attachments > FW: Informal Meeting with Gov. Palin Next Week > Thu, 8/7/08 268KB ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/28 "2008-10-09T21:57:27Z")
Oh, and, the wikileaks stuff is almost definitely [genuine](http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails). Folks can probably still find copies over at the pirate bay dot com, although I won’t link to it as it’s a torrent site and TPTB here wouldn’t like tha.t ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/29 "2008-10-09T22:13:42Z")
That’s probably true - but the fact is that, like the Bush memos, the political fallout will be lessened considerably because the account was hacked. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/30 "2008-10-09T22:20:07Z")
Well we caught him standing over the corpse, with its severed head in his hand, holding a knife dripping in blood, and a recently fired shot gun laying at his feet. Also written in blood on the wall, in his handwriting, was the following: “I just shot this guy with a shot gun and cut off his head”. Yeah, but did you _see_ him pull the trigger? ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/31 "2008-10-09T22:21:10Z")
I know there are laws prohibiting government employees from using their taxpayer-paid email addresses to solicit donations/campaign/etc. Some companies/agenices also prohibit employees from using their busines emails for their personal business. However, I’m not aware of any laws prohibiting a person from using their personal emails to conduct business. That’s not saying they don’t exist; I’m just trying to understand why this would be an issue. (Sunshine laws?) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/32 "2008-10-09T22:43:23Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > My guess would be “theater”. The United States Marshals Service handles transportation of those in federal custody (like someone who turns himself in and needs to be delivered to court for his initial appearance). It would be up to them to determine what security was appropriate. They don’t make bail decisions and they don’t hear motions. They probably have some rules about when prisoners must be shackled. It’s probably very general, and it probably required the guy to be delivered in shackles. Apparently the policy \*was \* to deliver prisoners in leg shackles. The 9th Circuit appears to have invalidated the rule. [Federal Court Gives Leg Chains the Boot](http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/16/local/me-shackles16) But Tennessee isn’t in the 9th Circuit. Moreover, a later 9th Circuit case said the Marshals could routinely deliver prisoners in leg shackles for their initial appearances. None of this has anything to do with what the judge thought about the guy being a fligh risk. [Court Lets U.S. Marshals in L.A. Use Shackles](http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/16/local/me-sbrief16.5) ---
**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/33 "2008-10-09T23:14:34Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > I know there are laws prohibiting government employees from using their taxpayer-paid email addresses to solicit donations/campaign/etc. Some companies/agenices also prohibit employees from using their busines emails for their personal business. However, I’m not aware of any laws prohibiting a person from using their personal emails to conduct business. That’s not saying they don’t exist; I’m just trying to understand why this would be an issue. (Sunshine laws?) I am not a lawyer, and I’m not going to go and peruse the Alaskan Public Records Act, but I did find their definition of “record”. > [@](#): > > “record” means any document, paper, book, letter, drawing, map, plat, photo, photographic file, motion picture film, microfilm, microphotograph, exhibit, magnetic or paper tape, punched card, **electronic record, or other document of any other material, regardless of physical form or characteristic, developed or received under law or in connection with the transaction of official business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by an agency or a political subdivision** , as evidence of the organization, function, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the state or political subdivision or because of the informational value in them; the term does not include library and museum material developed or acquired and preserved solely for reference, historical, or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved solely for convenience of reference, or stocks of publications and processed documents; > [source](http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title40/Chapter21/Section150.htm) There is a law in Alaska that all public records be archived by the appropriate archivist and they have a state version of the Freedom of Information Act, so people can request public records. The issue with conducting state business through a private account is that there is no way to check whether the records are being archived. The official accounts are backed up and recorded by the archivist, whereas private accounts are not. If you conduct state business through private accounts, then there is no way for people to access that business. This makes people think you’re hiding things. The upshot is that, because the public is supposed to be able to access the records, all official business has to go through the official accounts. Of course, there are some limits on what the public can request, but that decision is not made at the time that the email (or whatever) is being written; rather it is handled when the request is made. So, for instance, the tax returns are all saved but John Q. Public can’t get his neighbor Joe Sixpack’s tax return just by asking nicely. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/34 "2008-10-09T23:16:10Z")
Here’s the 9th Circuit case: > [@](#): > > Defendants seek review of a district-wide policy requiring leg restraints during defendants’ initial appearances. The policy was discussed by the magistrate judges in formal and informal meetings. The magistrate judges also consulted with the United States Marshals Service for the Central District of California, and, in April 2003, following these consultations, the Marshals Service implemented the policy. It applies only to in-custody defendants as opposed to defendants appearing in court in response to a summons. The record indicates that the Marshals Service consulted with the magistrate judges before enacting the [\*\*4] policy and that it was enacted to address security concerns surrounding the transportation of varying numbers of in-custody defendants from secure facilities to a less-secure courtroom. The record also indicates that during at least some period in the past, defendants were neither shackled nor handcuffed at initial appearances. Before the policy in question was implemented, however, in-custody defendants appeared in full restraints, so this policy represented a reduction of restraints on defendants. > > The record contains the declaration of Robert Masaitis, Chief Deputy United States Marshal for the Central District of California, who states that “[t]he new policy was implemented after consultations with the magistrate judges of the district.” [\*1009] He further states that the shackling policy is necessary to ensure safety and order in the courtroom. He also states that the need for leg restraints is enhanced by staffing shortages in the Marshals Service. The declaration also states that prisoner management is crucial to the Marshals Service’s duty to provide security for the federal judiciary, and that the greatest risks of escape and violence occur during transportation from detention facilities [\*\*5] and in the courtroom. > > * * * > > MERITS > > This court has not decided whether a general policy of shackling a defendant for a proceeding in front of a judge violates due process. Nearly all of the litigation concerning shackled defendants arises in the context of proceedings in front of a jury. See, e.g., Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 125 S. Ct. 2007, 161 L. Ed. 2d 953 (2005) (extending the general prohibition on the use of shackles to the penalty phase of a jury trial); Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 1995); Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1990); Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d 712 (9th Cir. 1989). These cases turn in large part on fear that the jury will be prejudiced by seeing the defendant in shackles. See Deck, 544 U.S. at 630; Duckett, 67 F.3d at 748; see also Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1970). Thus, HN8Go to this Headnote in the case.the general rule is that a court may not order a defendant to be physically restrained unless the court is “'persuaded by compelling circumstances that some measure is needed to maintain security of the courtroom, [\*\*15] '” and “‘the court must pursue less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints.’” Gonzalez v. Pliler, 341 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Duckett, 67 F.3d at 748). In the present case, however, fear of prejudice is not at issue, as a judge in a pretrial hearing presumably will not be prejudiced by seeing defendants in shackles. See United States v. Zuber, 118 F.3d 101, 104 (2d Cir. 1997) (HN9Go to this Headnote in the case.“We traditionally assume that judges, unlike juries, are not prejudiced by impermissible factors.”). > > In Deck, the Supreme Court stated that HN10Go to this Headnote in the case.“[t]he law has long forbidden routine use of visible shackles during the guilt phase; it permits a State to shackle a criminal defendant only in the presence of a special need.” Deck, 544 U.S. at 626. In discussing the “deep roots” of this rule, however, the Court noted that “the rule did not apply at ‘the time of arraignment,’ or like proceedings before the judge.” Id. Presumably, the reason the rule did not apply during proceedings before the judge is that the primary concern, expressed throughout the Court’s opinion, is the effect on the jury of viewing the [\*\*16] defendant in shackles. See, e.g., id. at 630 (“Visible shackling undermines the presumption of innocence and the related fairness of the factfinding process.”); id. at 631 (stating that one reason judges must seek to maintain a dignified judicial process is that the “courtroom’s formal dignity . . . reflects a seriousness of purpose that helps to explain the judicial system’s power to inspire the confidence and to affect the behavior of a general public whose demands for justice our courts seek to serve”); see also, e.g., Gonzalez, 341 F.3d at 899-900 (stating that “the sight of physical restraints may have a significant effect on the jury”); Rhoden v. Rowland, 172 F.3d 633, 636 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[S]hackling, like prison clothes, is an indication of the need to separate a defendant from the community at large, creating an inherent danger that the jury may form the impression that the defendant is dangerous or untrustworthy.”). Because the primary concern is the effect of physical restraints on a jury, we have found no prejudice to a defendant where the restraint was not visible to the jury. See, e.g. [\*\*17] , United States v. Collins, 109 F.3d 1413, 1418 (9th Cir. 1997) (rejecting the defendant’s due process challenge to being chained to a table during his trial, reasoning that, “after weighing various alternatives, the [district] court adopted a means of restraint that was not visible to the jury,” and concluding that he failed to demonstrate prejudice because there was no evidence that the jury was aware that he was restrained); Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145, 149 (9th Cir. 1992) [\*1013] (finding that “the court’s error in too quickly permitting shackling” was harmless because, “[a]s far as the jury was concerned, the chain was invisible”), amended by 997 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1993). > > Defendants contend that the shackling policy violates their due process rights. They point out that before a defendant can be shackled in front of a jury, the court must be persuaded by compelling circumstances that some measure is needed to maintain security, and that no less restrictive alternatives are available. See Jones, 899 F.2d at 884-85. They argue that due process requires that there be no restraint whatsoever without an individualized [\*\*18] determination. This may go farther than due process requires. But we do not have to reach this question. This case does not involve the question of shackling in the presence of a jury or during a trial. > > The Second Circuit has concluded that the rules regarding shackling do not apply in proceedings before a judge, rather than a jury. Zuber, 118 F.3d at 102. In Zuber, the court held that HN11Go to this Headnote in the case.“the rule that courts may not permit a party to a jury trial to appear in court in physical restraints without first conducting an independent evaluation of the need for these restraints does not apply in the context of a non-jury sentencing hearing.” Id. at 102; see also DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84, 87-88 (2d Cir. 2000) (rejecting the argument that the state trial judge “improperly delegated the decision regarding whether or how to restrain him to a corrections official rather than independently evaluating the need for the restraint,” and reasoning that, “even if the state judge did not exercise independent judgment, it is not clear that such an independent exercise of discretion is even required when restraints will not be visible to a jury”) [\*\*19] (citing Zuber, 118 F.3d at 103-04). > > The court distinguished the situation from proceedings in the presence of a jury, reasoning that the possibility of juror bias “constitutes the paramount concern” in cases requiring “an independent, on the record, judicial evaluation of the need to employ physical restraints in court.” Zuber, 118 F.3d at 103-04. The court noted that the United States Marshals Service was responsible for court security and that district judges therefore consulted regularly with the Marshals Service and deferred to its judgment regarding “precautions to be taken at hearings involving persons who are in custody.” Id. at 104. Finally, the court stated that, “[w]e presume that where, as here, the court defers without further inquiry to the recommendation of the Marshals Service that a defendant be restrained at sentencing, the court will not permit the presence of the restraints to affect its sentencing decision.” Id. > > Similarly here, the magistrate judges of the district court discussed the issue among themselves and consulted with the Marshals Service about the balance to be struck in proceedings where, as Magistrate [\*\*20] Judge Charles F. Eick stated, “security-related information concerning defendants typically is incomplete.” Judge Eick explained that the court made the “institutional decision” in favor of the shackling policy after several formal and informal meetings. > > The security concerns addressed by this policy emerge due to the Central District’s practice of conducting proceedings in a large courtroom on the third floor of the Roybal Courthouse, in the presence of multiple defendants, where the risks of conflict, violence, or escape are heightened. The policy was instituted following consultation with HN12Go to this Headnote in the case.the Marshals Service, which is charged with providing for the security of the United States courts. 28 U.S.C. § 566(a). Cf. United States v. Mayes, 158 F.3d 1215, 1226 [\*1014] (11th Cir. 1998) (stating that the district court was “entitled to rely in part upon the expertise and experience of the Marshals Service in making its decision” to impose physical restraints on the defendants). > > The record indicates that this policy is less restrictive than the previous policy requiring full restraints. The policy leaves in place the option for a defendant to move the court [\*\*21] for removal of the shackles, and an individualized determination may be made at the time of the motion as to whether extenuating circumstances warrant removal of the shackles. We further note that understaffed security officers must provide courtroom security in a large and unsecured space. > > The policy at issue concerns only proceedings conducted without the presence of a jury. It was adopted by the magistrate judges of the court following consultation with the Marshals Service to address legitimate security concerns in the Roybal Courthouse. For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment to uphold the policy is AFFIRMED. _United States v. Howard_, 480 F.3d 1005; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7067 (2007) ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/35 "2008-10-09T23:22:12Z")
> [@Tenebras](#): > > The upshot is that, because the public is supposed to be able to access the records, all official business has to go through the official accounts. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/36 "2008-10-09T23:23:52Z")
Great Og, **G**. Ain’t there a Reader’s Digest version? I like law myself, but even my eyes glazed over wading through that. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/37 "2008-10-09T23:28:31Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > Great Og, **G**. Ain’t there a Reader’s Digest version? I like law myself, but even my eyes glazed over wading through that. 😛 Upshot. The presumption during the guilt phase of a trial is that the accused should not be visibly shackled without a good reason (he’ll try to kill people, he’ll try to escape, something like that). But the same presumption doesn’t apply at the initial appearance because there is no jury present ,the time in custody is usually brief, and security information about the defendant is often incomplete. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/38 "2008-10-09T23:32:18Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Upshot. The presumption during the guilt phase of a trial is that the accused should not be visibly shackled without a good reason (he’ll try to kill people, he’ll try to escape, something like that). But the same presumption doesn’t apply at the initial appearance because there is no jury present ,the time in custody is usually brief, and security information about the defendant is often incomplete. So does this then mean that the defendant in cases like this IS routinely shackled? Even when the defendant has voluntarily surrendered himself? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/39 "2008-10-09T23:52:42Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > So does this then mean that the defendant in cases like this IS routinely shackled? Even when the defendant has voluntarily surrendered himself? Yes. If he’s in custody. Although, the case says the policy that the court was considering was district-wide. It’s possible that a different district might have a different policy. The case really only establishes that at least one district has that policy and that the court with appellate jurisdiction over that district upheld the policy. I don’t know for sure what the policy is for the court in which this guy was in and I don’t have time to find it right now. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/40 "2008-10-10T13:35:09Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Well we caught him standing over the corpse, with its severed head in his hand, holding a knife dripping in blood, and a recently fired shot gun laying at his feet. Also written in blood on the wall, in his handwriting, was the following: “I just shot this guy with a shot gun and cut off his head”. > > Yeah, but did you _see_ him pull the trigger? Where your attempt at a brilliant analogy falls short is that in the set of facts you offer, there’s very little room for another inference besides _he shot the victim_. In contrast, here (prior to **Tenebras** ’s post) there was room for plenty of other equally reasonable inferences. Which is why I kept asking for specifics. Now, there are two ways to respond to such a request – hysterical shrieking about the request, or answering it. **Tenebras** chose to answer it, and, as far as I’m concerned, NOW we’re at the point where there’s no really reasonable inference except that of improper use of mail. So, thanks, **Tenebras** , for answering the question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194.md?page=3)