Of course. In fact, the courts forced Nixon to turn over incriminating evidence (tapes) he made. That was damning evidence in his own voice. The thing is, if the courts and lawyers know about the existence of the evidence, they have a right to it, as long as they get a subpoena. If you read the finding I linked to above, it turns out she identified the computer as having stuff on it that the prosecution would probably want, and that the encryption was a ploy to interfere with the prosecution.
A finding that is wrong and will be thrown out by a higher court. Here's the defendant's side: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/us_v_fricosu/fricosuamicus7811.pdf Judge Robertson is notable only through the outlandish ruling he has delivered and the total lack of support he has received from his colleagues.
Wrong again. Nixon erased all incriminating evidence and turned over nothing of value. He was not charged or prosecuted for destroying evidence or hampering prosecution. In fact he was supported in the manner of a king for decades at the public's expense. Having the right to search for alleged evidence is a far cry from having the right to force the accused to get it for you. Saying it's something they want could mean she has nude pics of herself on it.
Wrong, MARIS61* What is your expert legal opinion on why Nixon had to turn over those tapes he made? The fool should have encrypted them!
Speaking of law school, this clown only spent 6 years total in college and has a only a BA and JD for his "efforts". Guess he's got connections.
Maybe the law school of the defendant's own lawyer? The judge disagreed, saying that only verbal testimony and disclosing what is in the defendant's own mind are protected. At the end of the document, what is this, a trade of immunity for her testimony? He decides
If the ruling quoted in the defendant's argument is valid--that "a defendant may be compelled to produce the key to a lockbox, but not the combinationto a safe"--then I have to agree with Maris here.
That fully supports my post. Nixon erased/destroyed the most crucial evidence (where he plotted to overthrow the country and round up all liberals for execution?) and his guilt in destroying evidence and obstructing justice was never prosecuted despite being proclaimed obvious by those responsible for prosecuting.
This amendment has only been law for about 225 years, a quarter of a millennium. You'd think they would have worked out every last detail about how much cooperation it requires. Give the lawyers another millennium or two. At $250 per hour, hmm, my calculator only goes up to 64 digits, I can't figure it out. Meanwhile, she should tell the judge to stick it. She has nothing to lose.
That's not correct, but anyway she only had an encrypted version and she already turned it over. She has nothing in her possession left to turn over other than a password in her mind.
Encryption (code, secret writing forms) has been around a lot longer than 225 years. They wrote about warrants in the 4th amendment.
Not true. She can type in her password out of sight of the govt. employees. They are not on a fishing expedition. They know exactly what they're looking for because SHE TOLD THEM ALREADY.
That's my point, it should be settled law by now. I'm sure that sometime in 225 years, prosecutors have seized a document whose secret code was known only to the defendant. Probably, they simply didn't use it as evidence, rather than require self-incrimination, i.e. disclosure of the code.
They could produce some fraudulent but incriminating document, claiming they broke the encryption. What's the defendant going to do? The law is settled. The step by step reasoning process laid out by the judge is the check list. Capiche?
Then they can require a murderer to produce the body. After all, he can dig it up out of their sight while they stand 50 feet away. They can require almost all self-incrimination, according to you. What exactly can't they require? That list will be much shorter than the list of what they can require, if you're right.
Not at all. That's not even close. She is not being compelled to testify against herself because she already told the prosecution what's on the hard drive. It's a foregone conclusion. The warrant is reasonable, specifies the thing, place, and time explicitly. It is not a fishing expedition where they may find something unspecified that is incriminating. If she wants to keep her password private, which is reasonable, the govt. is making that possible. Don't believe me? It's in the finding and it cites several precedents. Or google for "5th amendment foregone conclusion" and gain a clue.
