Sklyarov Discusses the ElcomSoft Trial 270
DaytonCIM writes "Dmitry Sklyarov talks openly about the ElcomSoft trial to CNET News. The 'Russian programmer thinks it was unfair of prosecutors to play his videotaped deposition at the ElcomSoft trial rather than calling him to the stand.'"
Re:Um (Score:2, Informative)
Thanks for playing.
More Info on the Case (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Um (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The question I want answered is... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
It was evidence, and the prosecution probably guessed that actually having Dmitry on the stand would hurt their case. Of course, since this isn't one of those really backwards countries the defense was able to put Dmitry on the stand as one of their own witnesses.
Unfair? Try "only option" (Score:2, Informative)
Before everybody gets up in arms about this great injustice, let's have a brief look at the facts*, shall we?
That means he knew they could use the deposition in court, and chose to give it anyway
That means that the prosecutor couldn't call him to the stand, even if he wanted to
Unless I'm missing something here, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If Dmitri wanted to testify, his lawyer, the defense attorney, could have called him to the stand; that he didn't indicates that he (the lawyer) felt that putting him on the stand, where he'd be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, would be more harmful to the case than allowing his deposition to go unexplained.
Given the outcome of the case, I'd have to agree.
IANAL.
(*Yes, I know, facts, on Slashdot. It's so crazy it just might work!)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
You have to remember that the charges against him were dropped. As soon as he accepted the bargain of exchanging his testimony/recorded whatever for dropped charges, he lost his right to defend himself and/or his actions. Any defendant has the right to face his accuser in court, not just anybody involved. And in any case, Elcomsoft's attorney could call him at any time.
Re:Whats the difference... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He wasn't under oath for the tape, right? (Score:2, Informative)
Depositions taken in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 [ukans.edu] may be used at trial in accordance with subpart (e) of that Rule:
Re:Unfair? Try "only option" (Score:1, Informative)
The law doesn't say the prosecution can't put him on the stand... it just says he has the right to refuse to testify once he is on the stand on the grounds that it may incriminate himself.
Unless I'm missing something here, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If Dmitri wanted to testify, his lawyer, the defense attorney, could have called him to the stand; that he didn't indicates that he (the lawyer) felt that putting him on the stand, where he'd be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, would be more harmful to the case than allowing his deposition to go unexplained.
RTFA... From the article:
The defense later called Sklyarov as its own witness, and in a calm, cooperative manner, the boyish programmer testified that he never intended for the product to be used illegally--an assertion that played well with jurors interviewed after the case. He said the software was designed to allow people to make backup copies of eBooks they already own or transfer the material to a different computer.
Damn it people... read the fscking article some time instead of writing ignorant comments...
Re:Unfair? Try "only option" (Score:3, Informative)
Travis
Re:Breaking US laws in Russia (Score:2, Informative)
Ok, up front: I think DMCA is crap and I don't think this guy did anything wrong.
But, to be technical, he wasn't "breaking US law in Russia." The US law wasn't in question until the software was exported to the US at which point it becomes subject to US laws. Then, by setting foot in the US, he became subject to US law.
In other words, if you are going to write questionable software outside the US and then make it available in the US, you should probably avoid flying in to make the convention circuit.
Re:Whats the difference... (Score:4, Informative)
challenge your statements on the stand, obviously with the intent to lessen the impact of those statements on the jury.
I wouldn't say it is to lessen the impact, I would say it is to clarify and balance the statements.
The US legal system is an adversarial system, each lawyer tries to turn the testimony to support his side as much as possible. Witnesses are not allowed to simply get up there and announce the "truth". They can only answer the lawyer's questions. The laywer has a lot of control of what information is presented and how it is presented. Without cross examinaton it can be extremely distorted.
With recorded testimony the control is even greater. If the lawyer doesn't like the way one of his questiones was answered I think he can "unask the question" by not including the question in the tape.
Was this a misscarrige of justice? No, the defence was able to add him to their witness list and call him themselves. It just strikes me as a stupid stunt by the prosecution.
If I were on a jury and this sort of think happened I'd certainly wonder why the hell the prosecution didn't want him on the stand.
-