Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashleyn | Hacker News Reader

Police never thought to subpoena the ISP for the IP address associated with the cashapp login? This seems like an egregious omission in the investigation. Even if it were a VPN, you could subpoena her email to find payment receipts to the provider, etc. Even that may not necessarily prove guilt if there are no logs. That's all an enormous leap of evidence to assume the account is genuinely hers, especially given how endemic identity theft is.

View on HN

> According to 404 Media's review, the address on the account was one where neither Smith nor her husband had ever lived. The account had also been accessed through Verizon connections, while Smith says she uses AT&T and has never had a Verizon plan.

> There was also a discrepancy involving the phone used to create the account. Cash App's records showed an iPhone running iOS 16.1.1, an operating system dating back to 2022. Smith, however, provided evidence that her iPhone 13 mini was running the much newer iOS 26.5.2.

That's even crazier. You have to question if they even understand what they're investigating. I expect this to be thrown out in court, although I also have declining faith in our court system.

I think you have to understand that they care more about whether or not they can get a conviction than whatever actually happened. Then the rest of it makes perfect sense.

Key insight: the police and prosecutors are not measured by crimes solved but by number of convictions.

So beyond the prosecutor, we have to start questioning judges and juries. If the prosecutor so strongly feels that a weak case has a chance of getting a conviction, then what's really wrong here: the prosecutor or the judge/jury part of the system? Prosecutors are famous for only bring cases to trial they feel they can win. That sense normally comes from their experience directly or reading of previous trials.

>then what's really wrong here: the prosecutor or the judge/jury part of the system?

Arkansas is one of the least educated states in the US and one of the poorest. So, yea, there are a lot of systemic issues there.

Having had the opportunity to participate and observe the jury system, there is no way I'd ever take a jury trial for a criminal matter. The judge started off the trial by informing the jury pool that despite the state lacking any evidence, we'd need to attest we could find the defendant guilty. Jurors follow the instructions given to them by judges, that is all.

I have heard from random lawyers that if the facts are in your favor, get a bench trial, if you are actually guilty, you can maybe sway a jury.

We don't have juries because they are smarter or more fair or more just on average than a judge. We have juries entirely due to the concept of jury nullification. It's a formalization of the concept the founders sometimes expressed where "Yes I did it, but that doesn't mean I should go to jail" is an intended outcome. It's explicitly that Justice isn't the same as "follow the letter of the law".

The prosecutor is trying to scare this woman into accepting a plea deal. Couple thousand dollars and 6 months probation. Maybe they eventually drop the case, but she’s going to face much more than that in travel and legal costs. No matter what happens here, this woman is, on some level, fucked with no recourse. And the people responsible for it are the ones who should be protecting her from the effects of the identity theft in the first place.

It’s insane that a prosecutor can do this and not be sued for those damages.

The breadth of prosecutorial immunity is one of those things that reveals how broken the American system is.

> If the prosecutor so strongly feels that a weak case has a chance of getting a conviction

Who says that's the case? US courts are overloaded and public defenders are massively overloaded.

Most people can't afford to hire a good lawyer, and a (let's say) 10% chance of years in prison isn't worth gambling versus a plea deal to them. Prosecutors know this, file massive scary charges, and motivate people to settle regardless of innocence or guilt.

They don't care at all. For her it's potentially six years in prison, for the cops, and the prosecutor it's a small potatoes case on a random Thursday.

The plea deal offer kind of says it all, if this reaches the court it will either very quickly be thrown out or they may drop it because it's not worth the time.

I think people underestimate how much the separation of roles matters to the case and to the motivations of the people in each role.

The detectives screwed up by doing a piss poor investigation and identifying the wrong suspect (who is a victim herself in this crime).

The prosecutor cares more about whether they can sell the flawed case to an Arkansas jury or use the low plea bargain cost against the high legal defense cost.

Is there a way to know if she is being represented by a public defender?

I believe she's innocent, but neither the ISP nor the iOS version are proof of innocence in any way. You can go login from the neighborhood Starbucks and you can simply update your phone.

In the US, the burden of proof is on the criminal justice system, which is required to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The defendant's goal is therefore to introduce that reasonable doubt, not necessarily prove innocence. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Police are largely incompetent, what do you really expect?

*People

Most people don't have the power to strip me of my freedom and legally shoot me. If anything the police should be held to a higher standard than the average person.

People are likely on average a lot more competent than american police.

unlikely

In USA*

Many other countries have proper multi-year colleges specifically for the field of policing, and rigorous physical and mental health tests required to get the job. In those countries the police is more educated and more competent than the vast majority of the population.

I can't think of any country with a competent police force.

The problem is that in most countries (except the US), it is an extremely badly paid job, so it only attracts people who get something else from it: power.

> Many other countries

Which countries are you thinking of?

I only know of Finland and Norway (and in some states of Germany) where this is true.

Police don't issue subpoenas. The courts and prosecuting attorneys do. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subpena_%28subpoena%29

funny you think cops are supposed to actually solve crimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com