>Another possible explanation was that they felt they had enough to nail him sufficiently on the other charges, and didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses.

Your argument is equivalent to: "As long as a conviction feels good, it doesn't much matter if the due process of law is followed" . It's the equivalent of arguing for a system that is ok with police breaking into a house without a warrant as long as they find something illegal.

> As long as a conviction feels good, it doesn't much matter if the due process of law is followed

What? I don't believe I said anything about "feeling good" anywhere in my comment, so I struggle to fathom how my argument can be equivalent to an argument that includes that term.

Where was due process violated here?

Charges were dropped and he will not be convicted on those, and you have no evidence yourself. Rumors are not a bar to presume guilt.

? I quoted the judge in the case, who does have the evidence . . .. She didn't presume guilt. She factored evidence of guilt into her sentencing decision.

> She didn't presume guilt. She factored evidence of guilt into her sentencing decision.

What does that mean? How do you factor in "evidence of guilt" without assuming guilt? That is absurd.

Here's how it works. If those were the only charges, then your standard of proof would be "beyond a reasonable doubt" (i.e. 97-99% likely). They aren't. Since the other charges were already proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is already going to be incarcerated for the statutory thirty years to life. Now the judge has to decide how much time to give. If the defendant is a saint who made a mistake, maybe they get thirty years. If the defendant is the devil, they might get life. I don't know what standard of evidence the judge is required to use to make this decision, but I'm under the impression that it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is probably more like, "preponderance of evidence," (>50% likelihood). So if the judge believes the most likely scenario is that the defendant is a super bad guy, they might give a harsher sentence.

As an aside, epistemically, you seem to be confused about the meaning of "evidence." Evidence is stuff that causes you to believe something more. Evidence does not imply that there is a 100% certainty of something being true.

I'm aware of what judicial discretion is. I find the idea of using unproven allegations as input into that process to be pretty concerning, though.

> As an aside, epistemically, you seem to be confused about the meaning of "evidence." Evidence is stuff that causes you to believe something more. Evidence does not imply that there is a 100% certainty of something being true.

I'm not confused about what "evidence" is. The thing is that we have a process for determining guilt of crimes, and it's not "a judge thinks evidence is fairly compelling".

We have here someone who was convicted of a specific set of crimes but whose sentencing was driven by another set of unproven crimes. "Factoring in evidence" of those alleged crimes requires assuming that those crimes were committed as alleged, but such assumption violates the presumption of innocence. If the evidence is compelling, then try those crimes.

> didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses

Oh, come now. What prosecutor is going to drop murder charges in favor of money laundering and computer hacking charges when they have unambiguous evidence?

I don't know. I don't know too many prosecutors, and whenever I read about them, it's normally related to sensational news stories or even more sensational fictional TV shows. Perhaps you have more direct experience with these elusive creatures and have a better understanding of their mentalities.

He is serving life without parole. Why would they prove anything beyond what was necessary to get that?