Reading legal coverage in Wired is like reading technology coverage in People magazine.<p>The witness list will be disclosed, a few days before the trial. In no litigation does either side have an obligation to produce lists of witnesses well ahead of time unless specifically ordered by a judge.<p>Disclosure of witness lists is not required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which governs mandatory disclosures: <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16</a>. Local practice, including in SDNY where this trial is held, might hold it customary to make such disclosures, but no specific number of days of advance notice is usually required. It's useful to search "witness list" on that link and read the committee notes on the rationale behind the rule.<p>A good, but somewhat old, article on the subject. <a href="http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2743&context=wmlr" rel="nofollow">http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=27...</a>
Genuine question: I didn't followed closely this case, and I'm quite surprised to see so much people defending Ulbricht or the Silk Road on behalf of internet freedom. Some people comparing him to kevin mitnick... I mean, ain't we talking about someone who ran a website where you could illegally buy drugs, guns and or even request an assination? Why should we be concerned by his case?
Whether or not you think Ulbrecht really was a full-on digital gangster, assassinating enemies at will -- I sure don't -- I think we all can agree: it does not bode well for your coming trial when the judge publicly declares you a danger to the lives of witnesses.
This ruling likely doesn't matter that much, given that Ulbricht and his attorneys surely know who the most important witnesses are, as he knows the people he interacted with. It does, however, show that the judge is willing to believe in the possibility that he's Pablo Escobar 2.0. That probably doesn't bode well for his trial. Even though his guilt will ultimately be decided by a jury, the judge's rulings on motions (such as the pending motion to keep testimony about his attempted murders-for-hire out of the trial) can have a huge impact on the verdict.
This sounds as ridiculous as when Kevin Mitnick wasn't allowed to use a phone whilst incarcerated because it was rumoured he'd set of nuclear missiles by whistling at certain frequencies.<p>Edit: Slightly tongue in cheek.
Can a higher court overturn that decision?<p>Because if not, I hereby declare the entire trial a sham, a huge attack on his constitutional rights, an insult to the idea of impartial justice and a return to the Star Chamber.
Wow, this really looks like it's going to be a farce trial. I wonder in how many other cases "the accused is dangerous - better keep witnesses secret" rhetoric will be used to pervert justice. Especially if the "murder" accusations can simply be made up!