Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

British Hacker Marcus Hutchins Loses Bid to Omit "Intoxicated" Testimony

posted by takyon on Friday February 15 2019, @06:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the hangover-haranguing dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

British cyber-security expert Marcus Hutchins - who has been accused of writing virus code - has lost a legal bid to suppress some evidence prosecutors want to use against him.

The evidence is comments he made in an interview after the FBI arrested him.

He wanted the testimony discounted, claiming he gave it when "intoxicated".

A court ruling issued earlier this week threw out the request saying there was no evidence that he was under the influence of drugs.

FBI agents arrested Mr Hutchins on 2 August 2017 at Las Vegas's McCarran International Airport as he was starting his journey home after attending the Def Con hacker conference. He has been held in the US ever since his arrest.

He faces 10 charges related to malware, or malicious software, including a program called Kronos which is designed to steal banking credentials.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
British Hacker Marcus Hutchins Loses Bid to Omit "Intoxicated" Testimony | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 9 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:12PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:12PM (#801755)

    It is in like every movie not to talk to police, especially the FBI. Even if you did nothing wrong you might say something happened late last march but it turned out to be April 2nd or whatever. Now you have lied to the FBI and can go to jail. It is better to say nothing at all without a lawyer checking the records.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 15 2019, @08:19PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Friday February 15 2019, @08:19PM (#801759) Journal

    The authorities are trained to use a variety of tactics to get people to talk. Most ordinary people are untrained. And the propaganda movies and police serials [google.com] depict plenty of characters spilling their guts for one reason or another.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday February 15 2019, @08:40PM

    by zocalo (302) on Friday February 15 2019, @08:40PM (#801768)
    He's British, and it's a slightly different phrasing of your rights between the US and UK if you are detained. Miranda's "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can [and probably will] be used against you in court." is pretty clearly saying STFU until you have got a lawyer. The UK's version is "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.", which implies you should try and explain yourself and not get evasive rather than STFU and ask for a lawyer before you'll happily answer any questions if you suspect you're in genuine trouble.

    Hutchin's rejected defence was that his intoxicated state led him to initially confuse the two (we get enough US legal procedurals over here most people are probably at least vaguely aware of US process), during which time he managed to incriminate himself and, as such, what he said shouldn't be admissable as he wasn't of clear mind.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!