Hacker News Reader

Comment by nl | Hacker News Reader

The link above literally says:

> Conspiracy to Conceal Documents (Count 12) and other objects that would implicate Maricela Rueda in the riot and shooting at the Prairieland facility.

> Defendants convicted: Sanchez Estrada and Maricela Rueda

Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants, but I think the GP poster's point is pretty valid:

> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.

View on HN

> Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants ...

True, that is their job.

Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same.

30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or more felony convictions, this sentence would be roughly equivalent to Child Exploitation Enterprises (see section 2G2.6 here[0]).

The calculation of sentence length is based on the 2025 guidelines published here[1].

0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.

> That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard.

Probably. But put yourself in the defendant's shoes when the sentence was handed down. And then imagine what comfort is had by someone saying it "likely won't hold up on appeal".

> That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.

Agreed. I do not think the commenters were defending the sentencing and perhaps not considering it. What I sought to provide was recognizing the punishment must fit the crime.

Yeah, but I think the question is whether his actions did in fact obstruct justice. Both are relevant.

I don't know that i agree. If you intend to commit a crime but due to circumstances beyond your knowladge your actions did not amount to the crime even though you intended them to, i think that is still a crime.

The question is whether there exists a nexus between the supposedly obstructing behavior and the judicial proceeding. It doesn't even matter about the intent, if there was no nexus. Can the act of having moved these materials actually impeded the course of Justice?

>your actions didn't amount to a crime

>it is still a crime

Pardon me, but effin what?

Ah yes. There's a word for it.

You're literally calling for prosecuting thoughtcrimes.

Good job, making Orwell proud.

If you take an action in the real world it is no longer a thought crime.

>think of a crime

>take an action in the real world (not a crime)

>it's a crime

You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes.

"Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed! That's an action in the real world! Off with his head!"

By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime.

I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance of justice.

To be clear, by action i mean an action the person believes would result in the crime in question occuring.

> your desire

I don't think it's my desire. I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works.

And if you think this is bad, go look up the requirements for a conspiracy charge which are even less than this.

Yes but, again for clarification, for the specific infraction that is obstruction of justice there has to have been some possibility that the action taken or intended could have or did actually obstruct justice. There government must prove "a nexus between the defendant’s conduct and a particular official proceeding before a judge or court of the United States".

Yes fair point, although i think in this case that would be pretty trivial to prove.

>To be clear, by action i mean an action the person believes would result in the crime in question occuring.

....like putting a needle in a voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in the death of a person it represents.

>I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works.

FIY, I just intentionally put a needle through your voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in your untimely death.

You might want to report me for attempted murder, and find out the defense between how our legal system actually works, and how you wish it worked.

If you're still reading this, I'm willing to repeat the above real world action of stabbing your voodoo doll as many times as it is necessary for it to work, in the presence of witnesses.

You're welcome.

>And if you think this is bad

This is not just bad, it's insane.

I'm not going to switch to another subject (conspiracy charges).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com