Defense Attorney Tells Clients "Shut Down Your Online Accounts"

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
USA Today has a short piece on the use of online social networking sites to solve crime:

Nashville criminal defense attorney David Raybin says "The first thing I tell them is, you are shutting down your Facebook account." He cites the increasing use by police of online research to provide critical evidence in criminal investigations.

"Technology has revolutionized law enforcement in many ways," said Jack Rinchich, president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. "Sometimes people are pretty liberal about what they put on (social networking sites)," he said.

The USA Today story doesn't mention it; but just recently a San Francisco man went from murder suspect to being charged after a look at his personal computer revealed that he had been searching for information on how to purchase a handgun illegally, build a silencer, and watching videos of real murders.

Yet another great reminder that anything you say can and will be used against you, even if you say it long before the crime happened.
 
Yes.

People sometimes think they are "alone" on the internet, but that sense isn't really true.

A useful rule (in life generally) is to never do a thing you would only do if you could keep it a secret. This is especially true in the electronic commons of the internet.
 
Last edited:
I'm a prosecutor and I know that we have used evidence found on social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook and others to our advantage. It may not directly work into the case, but indirectly it helps connect dots that would otherwise not get figured out as clearly or cleanly or quickly. Linking associates, for instance, is easier on Social networking sites.

Obviously I post on social networking - but I'm not intending on doing anything illegal. I have become, however, more aware of it and careful what I post.
 
.....just recently a San Francisco man went from murder suspect to being charged after a look at his personal computer revealed that he had been searching for information on how to purchase a handgun illegally, build a silencer, and watching videos of real murders.
Click to expand...

Another example of media bias. Notice how they sandwich a legal activity (making a silencer) between an illegal activity and a possibly morally objectionable activity.

Ranb
 
RAnb said:
Bartholomew Roberts said:
.....just recently a San Francisco man went from murder suspect to being charged after a look at his personal computer revealed that he had been searching for information on how to purchase a handgun illegally, build a silencer, and watching videos of real murders.
Click to expand...
Another example of media bias. Notice how they sandwich a legal activity (making a silencer) between an illegal activity and a possibly morally objectionable activity.
Click to expand...
No, it's not media bias in this case, but accurate reporting. The case in question actually involves a recent ruling by the California Court of Appeals, in which the court ruled against a convicted murderer who argued that evidence of his internet searches should not have been admitted at his trial.

As reported here, the court ruled that those searches were admissible, as the testimony of witnesses suggested that a silencer may have been used in the crime:

Mares claimed that the trial court should not have allowed evidence of his Internet searches to be admitted as evidence, arguing that there was no proof a silencer was used and the Web logs were unfairly prejudicial.

In a ruling February 5, the California Court of Appeal (First District) disagreed, and upheld Mares' sentence of 53 years to life for first degree murder.

Excerpts from the opinion of the California appeals court:
The day before the shooting, on October 18, an Hispanic male driving a car similar to defendant's fired five or six shots at a DHL van driven by Rodney White. This shooting also occurred in Fremont. White chose two pictures from a photographic line-up, one of which was defendant's. White, who owned many guns, testified that the shots sounded like they came from a weapon smaller than a .357 or a .44...

Defendant contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his Internet searches for firearm silencers. He claims there was no evidence the shooter used a silencer and admission of the searches was therefore prejudicial...

There is no issue of admitting evidence of a particular type of silencer in contradistinction to evidence of a different type said to be used in the crime. Here, the evidence was of searches for silencers in general. This evidence was relevant because, contrary to defendant's claim on appeal, there was evidence to suggest a silencer was used to kill Alia Ansari. Several witnesses heard a popping noise, as opposed to a gunshot. And White, whom defendant shot at the day before the killing, testified the gun sounded like a smaller caliber than the type of weapon actually used in the killing. This suggests the possibility that the weapon used by defendant was quieter than it should have been--because defendant was using a silencer.

Defendant does not formally challenge, with citation to specific applicable authority, the admissibility of the evidence that he viewed the "Faces of Death" videos. This was improper character evidence and should not have been admitted. But any error is harmless...

Thus, defendant's Internet searches for silencers in the weeks before the killing were pertinent to his state of mind regarding premeditation and deliberation, and evidence of the searches was properly admitted.​


So the legality, or otherwise, of what a defendant was researching online makes no difference. What matters is whether it was relevant to the crime he or she is alleged to have committed.
 
Last edited:
WoofersInc said:
I personally find it much easier to not go around breaking the law than worry about what I have said online.
Click to expand...
Of course. But the point of this thread, for a law-abiding gun owner, is that if you are ever unlucky enough to have to use a gun in self-defense, things you've said on an Internet forum or researched online can be used against you, and they might make the difference between walking away or being charged with or convicted of a crime.

As well-moderated as TFL is, some people's chest-thumping, rants, etc., would be a prosecutor's delight if those people were involved in a self-defense shooting that was the slightest bit questionable.
 
As well-moderated as TFL is, some people's chest-thumping, rants, etc., would be a prosecutor's delight if those people were involved in a self-defense shooting that was the slightest bit questionable.
__________________
Click to expand...

That is why anything I say online I assume is going to be on the front page of the paper and bloviate accordingly.
 
As well-moderated as TFL is, some people's chest-thumping, rants, etc., would be a prosecutor's delight if those people were involved in a self-defense shooting that was the slightest bit questionable.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, things you have said over the years may well help you in a self-defense shooting. Ten years of posting that you would run if possible, you would let the bad guy run if possible, you would only shoot as a last resort, etc. just might help prove your side.
 
Can't tell you how many times a photo ID of a subject has been found on such a site......sometimes VERY useful info.
 
Hkmp5sd said:
Vanya said:
As well-moderated as TFL is, some people's chest-thumping, rants, etc., would be a prosecutor's delight if those people were involved in a self-defense shooting that was the slightest bit questionable.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, things you have said over the years may well help you in a self-defense shooting. Ten years of posting that you would run if possible, you would let the bad guy run if possible, you would only shoot as a last resort, etc. just might help prove your side.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. :)

(Smiley faces may help, too.)
 
No, it's not media bias in this case, but accurate reporting.
Click to expand...

I still say media bias. Building a silencer is not illegal. AFAIK, the man was not accused of building a silencer.

Ranb
 
RAnb said:
I still say media bias. Building a silencer is not illegal. AFAIK, the man was not accused of building a silencer.
Click to expand...
Call it court bias if you like, but it makes no sense to blame the media for accurately reporting the court's decision. The appeals court ruled that evidence of his interest in building silencers was admissible, because there was testimony suggesting that one may have been used in the murder he committed.

I can only repeat what I wrote in my earlier post: the legality, or otherwise, of what a defendant was researching online makes no difference. What matters is whether it was relevant to the crime he or she is alleged to have committed.

Baseball bats are not illegal, but if you were alleged to have killed someone with one, and investigators found evidence on your computer that you'd been researching them online, would you not expect a prosecutor to introduce that evidence? :rolleyes:
 
It is also helpful not to commit crimes.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, but consider this.

Put yourself in the position of a juror. A person has been charged with a crime for shooting someone. He says it was self-defense. The person who was shot and a person who was with him at the time say it was not.

The shooter says that the person shot and his associate made threatening actions and statements, and came at him in a manner that he perceived as threatening; that one of them appeared to reach for a weapon; and that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger. The other two contradict him on what was said and even on the distance from which the shot was fired, and say they were simply minding their own business while walking from their car toward a store when he suddenly drew and fired.

Witness testimony, if any, is entirely inconclusive; no weapon was found; there are no security camera tapes that show anything relevant; the forensic evidence shows only that the defendant shot the other person.

By the way, the person who was shot and his associate are very well dressed, very well groomed, and very respectful.

Under cross examination, all persons testifying are effectively limited to yes or no answers, without explanation, to questions that they feel are unfairly accusatory.

Did the shooter commit a crime? How will you decide?

Is it possible that what he has posted on line might influence your thinking? Might something he has said about shooting people, or about the ethnicity or value to society of certain classes of people influence your opinion of the shooter and his credibility?

By they way, my last time on a jury was before the internet was invented. Every time I have been involved in jury selection for a criminal trial I have been rejected, but I can tell you that the defendants were very well dressed and well groomed, and I think one should expect witnesses for the prosecution to present themselves well, also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top