SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Uber engineer accused of data theft against Google must privately explain the circumstances behind invoking his Fifth Amendment right to the judge in the case:
During a Wednesday court hearing, a federal judge said that if an Uber engineer accused of a massive data theft from his former employer is going to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to protect against self-incrimination and not hand over materials demanded as part of a recent subpoena and upcoming deposition, then he must at least explain himself privately to the judge.
"What I've told you is that you can submit the privilege log to me, in camera, without giving it to anyone else and I can evaluate it, which aspects, if any would be incriminating," US District Judge William Alsup said, addressing a lawyer representing the engineer, Anthony Levandowski, during the hearing. "I'm not ruling against the ultimate assertion of the privilege, but you've got to do more than just say in court, Fifth Amendment—you have to do a privilege log and go through the process."
The case pits Waymo against Uber, which in turn is in a tense situation with one of its own employees, Levandowski, the head of its self-driving division. Levandowski is now set to be deposed by Waymo lawyers this Friday at their San Francisco offices. He must also respond to a subpoena by handing over materials that he is accused of stealing— thousands of secret documents from his time with Waymo parent company, Google. On Wednesday, Judge Alsup quashed four of the six distinct items requested in the subpoena, but allowed first the most substantive, the allegedly "misappropriated materials," to stand. (The third item, "All communications between You and Uber between January 2015 and August 2016," will also remain.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @02:37PM (2 children)
So long as he is not going to be held accountable for what he says to the judge, than he has not incriminated himself in court.
IE- He was told 'steal everything from google' and he did. If he said 'my boss said steal everything from google and I did' that would under normal circumstance then make him liable for theft- it would ALSO make his boss part of that theft.
He pleads the 5'th, gets into the judges chambers, says 'my boss said steal everything from google, and I did'. The judge says 'thank you' and goes back to the courtroom.
At the end of the trial he says 'judgement for google, it is my finding that Uber willingly engaged in corporate espionage and theft up to the highest levels.'
No one ever knows what the engineer said, or how it affected the trial except the judge. The judge is not going to press charges, would not testify in court against the individual, and would recuse himself from any further legal matters taken against the engineer (or might insist that he BE the judge, in order to assure that the engineers presumed statement in his chambers is not held against him).
(Score: 2, Touché) by ThatIrritatingGuy on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:44PM (1 child)
The judge is not going to press charges, would not testify in court against the individual, and would recuse himself from any further legal matters taken against the engineer (or might insist that he BE the judge, in order to assure that the engineers presumed statement in his chambers is not held against him).
Can you back this up with regulations or is it a trust thing between the engineer and the judge? If the latter, then I'm not sure I would trust the judge enough to go for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @04:38PM
The decision to press criminal charges is a function of the executive branch (hence why clemency works at all), FRE 605 prevents the judge from testifying himself at the current trial, and the Code of Conduct Canon 2 prevents him from doing so in the future and Canon 3 prevents a different judge from allowing it in the future.