“I signed a deal and I found guilt most fitting for my situation.” That seems fairly straight forward.
But where does this Q&A between the judge and Matanov originate from? A trial transcript? A conversation in the judges chambers? Or don’t you care?
Yeah, it does. It means he had no faith the justice system wouldn’t bend him over and shove 20 years up his ass for the crime of having the wrong friends and a funny name so he copped to the most lenient guilty plea that he could get to mitigate the damage.
Question: there are four counts. Three are for lying to the investigators and one is for clearing his browser history etc. So - how much of the 30-month sentence is for the first three counts and how much is for the last one?
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. From all that I’ve ever read about federal court procedures, defendants never have much of a chance. Trials are very strictly scripted and manipulated to favor the prosecution. If a Fed agent asks you for the time of day and you tell him wrong because your watch was off, they can prosecute you for lying to a federal agent. We had a thread a few days ago about this.
Popehat has a compendium of blog posts about why you should never talk to a federal agent.
Federal law can be very Orwellian and Kafkaesque. They can indict a ham sandwich, and they can convict it.
Reported!
(To the FBI, that is.)
You’re doomed.
The judge’s mention of a possible sentence of 20 years refers only to the Sarbanes-Oxley violation. The federal sentencing guidelines are complicated and I’m not sure which of the enhancing factors the prosecution could prove, but I think the maximum combined sentence for the three obstruction of justice counts would have been 24 years. So presumably a non-trivial portion of the sentence (13.6 months, if it was broken down by reference to the statutory maxima) is for the browser clearing.
I tend to agree with Stringbean’s characterization of the Boston bombing and its aftermath, but honestly I don’t think this is that big a deal. It’s not like there was no connection at all between the browser clearing and criminal conduct.
All of the charges are legally dubious. If he had gone forward, he had a good chance of winning. But only a fool would risk 20 years when 2 is on the table.
And that’s the power of overcharging for crimes with sentences that are too high.
If this case is unremarkable, it’s only because it is the norm and not the exception.
The Tsarnaev brothers had no faith in the American justice system, either. At least Khairullozhon Matanov didn’t use a bomb to undermine the justice system. So he’s got that going for him.
Matanov pleaded guilty. The FBI, and other police agencies, didn’t have to produce the actual evidence against him. And the LEO agencies aren’t talking about the specifics of the case. That means that the dailykos-types are free to invent any unsubstantiated claims they wish. Some people will believe everything the dailykos-types spew. Some won’t.
If you want to legally change the way Sarbanes-Oxley is used, either A) someone needs to appeal their conviction to higher courts, or B) the legislature has to rewrite the law.
Retard? Really?
Anyway, I got him confused with Azamat Tazhayakov.
Or prosecutors could just, you know, not do this.
(post shortened)
Based on what? The FBI evidence that hasn’t been made public? The claims of the dailykos-types? 
Based on the indictment. In other words, even if he did everything he was accused of, the charges are legally dubious.
The Sarbanes-Oxley charge is dubious for the reasons set forth in this thread and the linked article. The three 18 USC 1001 charges are dubious as to the materiality prong, even if they were able to prove the requisite intent.
The Sarbanes-Oxley charge definitely seems to be an overcharge, but Sarbanes-Oxley won’t be clarified until someone actually appeals their conviction. By pleading guilty, it’s unlikely this case will alter/clarify Sarbanes-Oxley.
Should his lawyer have insisted Matanov plead not guilty, and demanded a jury trial? I believe Matanov’s intent was obvious. He didn’t want to be associated with his friends, the Boston Bombers. I assume that LEO’s would have eventually tracked phone calls, emails, credit cards, and witness testimony to tie Matanov to the Boston Bombers. It’s nice that Matanov volunteered information to police, but he also chose to lie about what information he supplied. Is that materiality sufficient to overcome any doubt about Matanov’s involvement with the Boston Bombers?
The materiality problem is that Matanov is apparently not tied to the underlying crimes in any way. So it wouldn’t have made a difference to the investigation if he told law enforcement everything he knew. For obstruction of justice charges to stick, the state (or in this case the federal goverment) must show that the information “relat[ed] to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States.”
Same … and sometimes I go through an anonymizer.
You assume a lot, douchebag.
If you’d bothered to read the article I linked, they were already following his every move to the point of harrassment - agents following him constantly, airplanes circling over his apartment all night long. They didn’t find anything except that he lied to them in ways which were not material to the case they were investigating.
And yes, I know this won’t sway you. Nothing does. Nobody has the power to change your mind! That’s what makes **doorhinge **so smart! Nobody can change his mind about anything.
So the reason I’m posting this is in case a reasonable poster who’s been reading the thread wondered if, in fact, they just hadn’t bothered to do the research yet when they arrested him. :smack:
Well, yeah, no shit. That’s the point. Since even an innocent person would be crazy to reject a 2-year plea deal when facing 20 years, they are generally going to plead guilty.
Note: the offering of the 2-year deal should cast some doubt in your mind about whether the prosecutors really thought this guy deserved 20 years in prison.
That’s definitely the right smiley for you. Hopefully RNATB’s post clarified. In short, why do you think it was material to their investigation whether he watched certain videos on his computer as opposed to merely downloaded them, for example?
Thanks for the info. In that case, it seems that Matanov, and his lawyer, should have pushed for a jury trial. Unless, of course, Matanov knew that he had assisted, or at least discussed, making or planting bombs at the Boston Marathon.
It’s not publically known what, specifically, Matanov erased from his computer. It’s not publically known what information the FBI had managed to retrieve from Matanov’s PC. Without a trial, or FOIA request, the facts may never be known.
It’s interesting that you are happy to make convenient assumptions about what law enforcement would find when it suits your argument, but then fall back on claims of insufficient evidence when someone else demonstrates that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Say that again when you’re facing a 20 year sentence and in the court of public opinion you’re tied to the most notorious criminals of the past decade.