11-08-2013, 11:27 AM
Month before hacktivist Barrett Brown's trial date in downtown Dallas, attorneys wrestle over delay, gag order
By Robert Wilonsky
rwilonsky@dallasnews.com
12:49 pm on August 9, 2013 | Permalink
The federal trial of journalist-turned-hacktivist Barrett Brown is currently scheduled to begin in a downtown Dallas courtroom next month a year after he was arrested in his Dallas apartment while in the midst of an online chat. That date may change: Some point soon, possibly before day's end, a federal judge will rule on a request made by Brown's attorneys to push the start date to February of next year.
The federal government vehemently opposes an extension, and has also asked the judge to "[restrict] the parties['] use of the media." Brown's attorneys call the government's move nothing short of a gag order.
Charlie Swift, best known as the attorney who defended Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver, and UT Law School's Ahmed Ghappour took Brown's case in April. Said Ghappour at the time, this case, which could land Brown behind bars for more than 100 years, "is one of those cases that will set standards with respect to the First Amendment." It's also a complicated one involving myriad counts of alleged criminal conduct, including threatening an FBI agent, conspiring to release the personal information of a U.S. government employee, identity theft and hyperlinking to "a document full of credit card numbers and their authentication codes that was stolen from the security company Stratfor" after it was hacked by Anonymous in 2011, as Vice explained earlier this year.
Since his arrest and detention in Mansfield, Brown has been the subject of myriad pieces heralding him as, among other things, a "political prisoner of the information revolution," per the U.K. Guardians July headline. "If he is convicted," read a recent post on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website, "it could have dire consequences for press freedom."
As far as the government's concerned, enough is enough.
"Since May 1, 2013, the government has reason to believe that Brown's attorney coordinates and/or approves the use of the media," says the feds' opposition to the extension, filed earlier this week. "Most of the publicity about Brown thus far contain gross fabrications and substantially false recitations of facts and law which may harm both the government and the defense during jury selection."
Swift and Ghappour vehemently disagree, per their Thursday filing.
"Mr. Brown has made no statements to the media since undersigned counsel appeared on the case," according to their filing including the late Michael Hastings. "Second, Mr. Brown's counsel have not made any statements to the media, except to state matters of public record or to explain the steps of the legal process. Third, although Mr. Brown's purported associates may be making statements about this case, those statements were not attributed to (and, at least as of May 1, 2013, are not properly attributable to) Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown and his counsel are well aware of the importance of maintaining a large potential jury pool in the Northern District of Texas, and at least since May 1, 2013, neither Mr. Brown nor his counsel have engaged in any acts that could even arguably be characterized as effectively undermining or interfering with the selection of impartial jury members. Therefore, the government's request for a gag order should be flatly rejected as unwarranted."
As for Swift and Ghappour's request to delay, due in large part to the amount of electronic data involved in this case and the need for a "forensic vendor," the government says Brown's legal team has has "adequate time to prepare for trial." The feds also contend he did not waive his right to a speedy trial.
Via email Thursday evening, Swift said that while he appreciates the government's efforts to ensure everyone, including Brown, receive get those speedy trials guaranteed under law, "We are concerned with having sufficient time to prepare in order to ensure that Mr. Brown receives a fair trial."
Both sides' arguments are below.
Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order by Robert Wilonsky
Documents at link here
By Robert Wilonsky
rwilonsky@dallasnews.com
12:49 pm on August 9, 2013 | Permalink
The federal trial of journalist-turned-hacktivist Barrett Brown is currently scheduled to begin in a downtown Dallas courtroom next month a year after he was arrested in his Dallas apartment while in the midst of an online chat. That date may change: Some point soon, possibly before day's end, a federal judge will rule on a request made by Brown's attorneys to push the start date to February of next year.
The federal government vehemently opposes an extension, and has also asked the judge to "[restrict] the parties['] use of the media." Brown's attorneys call the government's move nothing short of a gag order.
Charlie Swift, best known as the attorney who defended Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver, and UT Law School's Ahmed Ghappour took Brown's case in April. Said Ghappour at the time, this case, which could land Brown behind bars for more than 100 years, "is one of those cases that will set standards with respect to the First Amendment." It's also a complicated one involving myriad counts of alleged criminal conduct, including threatening an FBI agent, conspiring to release the personal information of a U.S. government employee, identity theft and hyperlinking to "a document full of credit card numbers and their authentication codes that was stolen from the security company Stratfor" after it was hacked by Anonymous in 2011, as Vice explained earlier this year.
Since his arrest and detention in Mansfield, Brown has been the subject of myriad pieces heralding him as, among other things, a "political prisoner of the information revolution," per the U.K. Guardians July headline. "If he is convicted," read a recent post on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website, "it could have dire consequences for press freedom."
As far as the government's concerned, enough is enough.
"Since May 1, 2013, the government has reason to believe that Brown's attorney coordinates and/or approves the use of the media," says the feds' opposition to the extension, filed earlier this week. "Most of the publicity about Brown thus far contain gross fabrications and substantially false recitations of facts and law which may harm both the government and the defense during jury selection."
Swift and Ghappour vehemently disagree, per their Thursday filing.
"Mr. Brown has made no statements to the media since undersigned counsel appeared on the case," according to their filing including the late Michael Hastings. "Second, Mr. Brown's counsel have not made any statements to the media, except to state matters of public record or to explain the steps of the legal process. Third, although Mr. Brown's purported associates may be making statements about this case, those statements were not attributed to (and, at least as of May 1, 2013, are not properly attributable to) Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown and his counsel are well aware of the importance of maintaining a large potential jury pool in the Northern District of Texas, and at least since May 1, 2013, neither Mr. Brown nor his counsel have engaged in any acts that could even arguably be characterized as effectively undermining or interfering with the selection of impartial jury members. Therefore, the government's request for a gag order should be flatly rejected as unwarranted."
As for Swift and Ghappour's request to delay, due in large part to the amount of electronic data involved in this case and the need for a "forensic vendor," the government says Brown's legal team has has "adequate time to prepare for trial." The feds also contend he did not waive his right to a speedy trial.
Via email Thursday evening, Swift said that while he appreciates the government's efforts to ensure everyone, including Brown, receive get those speedy trials guaranteed under law, "We are concerned with having sufficient time to prepare in order to ensure that Mr. Brown receives a fair trial."
Both sides' arguments are below.
Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order by Robert Wilonsky
Documents at link here
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.