Posted on 04/30/2010 7:56:15 AM PDT by SmithL
KNOXVILLE - Jurors in the trial of accused Sarah Palin e-mail intruder David C. Kernell were this morning urged to reach a complete verdict in the case.
The jurors began their fourth day of deliberations by hearing a special added instruction from U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Phillips.
Called an Allen charge in legal parlance, it is commonly called "a dynamite charge."
Phillips told the jurors that as they resume deliberating they should each reconsider their positions, but there was no need to rush to a verdict.
The jurors reported shortly before 9 a.m. and then retired to resume deliberations about 9:10 a.m.
By Thursday, they had reached unanimous agreement on three of the four counts against Kornell, 22.
Those verdicts were not announced.
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
50 years sounds fine to me.
You know that would never happen... :-) You can kill someone and not get 50 years ... LOL ...
Prediction. This guy is gonna walk and it’s not about wheather he broke the law or not. That has been well established. People either love Palin or they hate her and this jury will reflect that and only that. JMHO.
I agree.
If they are hung, just try him again. The government has sufficient tricks and power to maintain that sort of action for a person’s lifetime.
That's a really bad methodology to "set up" for the government to follow. Just imagine the fun that the Marxist/Liberal/Leftists would have with that one, for trying to "nail" conservatives...
I wouldn't be encouraging that one ... LOL ...
The etymological origin, I believe, is to breaking up a logjam.
imho, it’s GUILTY on the three other counts, but even I can’t find where he tried to do identity theft.
Yeah, that's probably it. And the "one holdout" is a conservative who is not giving up, doncha know ... LOL ...
“The crime of stealing someone’s personal, identifying information for the purpose of using that information fraudulently. Personal, identifying information includes: Social Security Numbers, credit card and banking account numbers, usernames, passwords, and patient records. Fraudulent uses for that information can often include: opening new credit accounts, taking out loans in the victim’s name, stealing money from financial accounts, or using available credit.”
Sounds like this fits to me...
Only hung on one charge. The identity theft. Just doesn’t seem to meet the typical definition of identity theft, IMHO.
It probably "meets the definition" for that one conservative holdout... LOL ...
If somebody logs on and says they’re me, isn’t that identity theft? It should be.
If that's the case, then you can say that the second someone cracks an account (any kind of account that someone has) -- then it's "identity theft" because they're pretending to be someone else.
Thus, every "hacker case" of breaking into some machine or some account, anywhere, -- every last one of them would be an "identity theft" ... (because you're pretending to be someone else) :-)
If he gets community service for three felonies, something is seriously broke. Hopefully this punk end ups in a gray bar community where he gets community serviced!
Well, considering how fast some people get out of jail for killing someone and how fast people convicted on drug crimes get out of jail -- we can see things are broke ... LOL ...
so if they log on to your banking accounts what would YOU call it? email, banking, FR account....it’s still falsely using your identity.
As I was saying up above, if that's the definition of "identity theft" then every last single case of "hacking" is identity theft.
And since we see that this charge is not used in all hacker cases, you can be assured that there are other elements to that charge ... :-)
Sounds like there are one or two holdouts...we don’t know upon which side.
Exactly. Works fine for me.
In my opinion, when one unlawfully accesses a personal email account where there are passwords etc to other personal accounts (bank accounts etc), that could be at least construed as the intent to commit identity theft. If this guy went so far as to access one account, which he did, why not deduce that his intent was to also access other accounts with the information he found there? His goal was to cause damage, and there is no reason to think that he was going to stop with just one effort.
Bingo! There is at least 1 maybe a couple of rat jurors who will refuse to convict. Any excuse they can come up with.
On the other hand, it could be one conservative hold-out to convict, while the others have voted to acquit.
Yes ... and no. Her security was terrible, but that doesn't excuse the crime. This little criminal tried to manipulate a national election by committing four felonies. He needs to be locked up for a VERY long time because his act was evil and his intent was evil.
And a very good point, too... if they can’t agree and it’s deadlocked — then yes, it should be “Not Guilty”...
“”””It’s her fault for having a private email account, you know.
Yes ... and no. Her security was terrible, but that doesn’t excuse the crime. This little criminal tried to manipulate a national election by committing four felonies. He needs to be locked up for a VERY long time because his act was evil and his intent was evil. “”””””””””””
I forgot this part..../SARC
So if he’s guilty on 3 out of 4 counts, he’s still guilty, right?
He might be innocent on three of four counts... you don't know because they didn't ask the jurors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.