Trial for Xbox 360 modder gets delayed after judge bashes prosecution - Polidicks

[img]http://cdn1.afterdawn.fi/v4/topBar/logoNEWS.gif[/img] [url=http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/12/02/trial_for_xbox_360_modder_gets_delayed_after_judge_bashes_prosecution]Source[/url] [release]The jury trial for the case of Matthew Crippen has been delayed today, after the presiding judge took 30 minutes to lecture the prosecution. Crippen is on trial for allegedly modding Xbox 360 consoles to be able to play pirated games and homebrew. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez started the trial off with a 30-minute rant complaining about the prosecution and the government's case, with his main concerns being the prosecution's "star" witnesses. The two witnesses in the case have both potentially broken the law, making them less credible. The first is Entertainment Software Association investigator Tony Rosario, who has video of Crippen modding consoles in his home in L.A. Those videos, however, were taped secretly, in violation of California's strict privacy laws. Microsoft security employee Ken McGrail is the second witness, the man who analyzed the consoles that were seized from Crippen's home. McGrail, however, has admitted under oath to modifying the original Xbox and the Xbox 360 back when he was in college. Crippen has been charged with two counts of breaking the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA and faces up to 10 years in prison. After Judge Gutierrez' rant, the prosecution asked for a recess and apologized to the court. [/release] [QUOTE=pyschomc;26465422]ah [url]http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/crippen-dismissed/[/url] here you go [quote]LOS ANGELES — Federal authorities in the first-of-its-kind game-console–modding criminal trial abruptly dropped their prosecution here Thursday, “based on fairness and justice.” “The government has decided to dismiss the indictment,” prosecutor Allen Chiu told the judge shortly before the jury was to be seated on the third day of trial. The announcement came a day after a whirlwind of legal jockeying in the case against defendant Matthew Crippen, a 28-year-old Southern California man. The government charged that Crippen, a hotel car-parking manager, ran a small business from his Anaheim home modifying the firmware on Xbox 360 optical drives to make them capable of running pirated or unauthorized games. It was the nation’s first jury trial to test the anti-circumvention provisions of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act as applied to game consoles. The law makes it a crime to offer a product or service that circumvents a technological measure designed to protect copyright material. Each of the two charges carried a maximum five years. “It still has not hit me yet,” Crippen said outside court, moments after Chiu dismissed the indictment. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez had blasted the prosecution’s case Wednesday, prompting a brief recess for prosecutors to decide whether they would forge ahead. The prosecution’s decision to continue would come back to haunt them as the government’s first witness ultimately unraveled their case. Witness No. 1, Tony Rosario, was an undercover agent with the Entertainment Software Association. He told jurors Wednesday that he paid Crippen $60 in 2008 to modify an Xbox, and secretly videotaped the operation. Rosario had responded to Crippen’s advertisement on the internet and met Crippen at his Anaheim house. All of that had been laid out in pretrial motions. But during his testimony, Rosario also said Crippen inserted a pirated video game into the console to verify that the hack worked. That was a new detail that helped the government meet an obligation imposed by the judge that very morning, when Gutierrez ruled that the government had to prove Crippen knew he was breaking the law by modding Xboxes. But nowhere in Rosario’s reports or sworn declarations was it mentioned that Crippen put a pirated game into the console. During the opening statements shortly before Rosario’s testimony, defense attorney Koren Bell told jurors that there would be no evidence of that kind. Defense attorney Callie Steele objected to the new testimony. And as court was to get underway here early Thursday, prosecutor Chiu told the judge that he first learned of Rosario’s newfound recollection days before trial. Chiu conceded he never forwarded that information to the defense. “That fact was disclosed on Sunday,” Chiu told the judge. “We should have disclosed that to the defense right away.” In light of that omission and “based on fairness and justice,” Chiu moved to dismiss the case, conceding that the government had made errors in its prosecution. Jurors, who heard only one day of testimony, left the courthouse with mixed opinions on the case. “When we left yesterday, I was thinking, ‘What are we doing here?’” said juror Paul Dietz, a 27-year-old actor. He said he “probably would have” acquitted. Another juror, Jerry Griffin, a 63-year-old trial attorney, said “I think Microsoft has a right to protect its proprietary information.” Steele, one of Crippen’s three publicly appointed defense attorneys, said afterward that the government last year offered a plea deal in which the defendant would get probation and have his computer usage restricted in exchange for pleading to two felonies. Rejecting that and going to trial, she said, “was a roll of the dice.” “This was a risk that needed to be taken,” she added. A felony conviction, she said, would have precluded Crippen from fulfilling his dream of becoming a high school special-education and math teacher. Crippen said he has a year left of school before he gets a liberal arts degree from Cal State Fullerton. His studies have been on hold since he was indicted last year. “I’m going back to school,” he said. [/quote][/QUOTE]

You'd think they check their shit BEFORE taking him to court.

Actually I heard they dismissed the case

What a joke...

Doesn't the government have bigger fish to fry?

ah [url]http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/crippen-dismissed/[/url] here you go [quote]LOS ANGELES — Federal authorities in the first-of-its-kind game-console–modding criminal trial abruptly dropped their prosecution here Thursday, “based on fairness and justice.” “The government has decided to dismiss the indictment,” prosecutor Allen Chiu told the judge shortly before the jury was to be seated on the third day of trial. The announcement came a day after a whirlwind of legal jockeying in the case against defendant Matthew Crippen, a 28-year-old Southern California man. The government charged that Crippen, a hotel car-parking manager, ran a small business from his Anaheim home modifying the firmware on Xbox 360 optical drives to make them capable of running pirated or unauthorized games. It was the nation’s first jury trial to test the anti-circumvention provisions of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act as applied to game consoles. The law makes it a crime to offer a product or service that circumvents a technological measure designed to protect copyright material. Each of the two charges carried a maximum five years. “It still has not hit me yet,” Crippen said outside court, moments after Chiu dismissed the indictment. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez had blasted the prosecution’s case Wednesday, prompting a brief recess for prosecutors to decide whether they would forge ahead. The prosecution’s decision to continue would come back to haunt them as the government’s first witness ultimately unraveled their case. Witness No. 1, Tony Rosario, was an undercover agent with the Entertainment Software Association. He told jurors Wednesday that he paid Crippen $60 in 2008 to modify an Xbox, and secretly videotaped the operation. Rosario had responded to Crippen’s advertisement on the internet and met Crippen at his Anaheim house. All of that had been laid out in pretrial motions. But during his testimony, Rosario also said Crippen inserted a pirated video game into the console to verify that the hack worked. That was a new detail that helped the government meet an obligation imposed by the judge that very morning, when Gutierrez ruled that the government had to prove Crippen knew he was breaking the law by modding Xboxes. But nowhere in Rosario’s reports or sworn declarations was it mentioned that Crippen put a pirated game into the console. During the opening statements shortly before Rosario’s testimony, defense attorney Koren Bell told jurors that there would be no evidence of that kind. Defense attorney Callie Steele objected to the new testimony. And as court was to get underway here early Thursday, prosecutor Chiu told the judge that he first learned of Rosario’s newfound recollection days before trial. Chiu conceded he never forwarded that information to the defense. “That fact was disclosed on Sunday,” Chiu told the judge. “We should have disclosed that to the defense right away.” In light of that omission and “based on fairness and justice,” Chiu moved to dismiss the case, conceding that the government had made errors in its prosecution. Jurors, who heard only one day of testimony, left the courthouse with mixed opinions on the case. “When we left yesterday, I was thinking, ‘What are we doing here?’” said juror Paul Dietz, a 27-year-old actor. He said he “probably would have” acquitted. Another juror, Jerry Griffin, a 63-year-old trial attorney, said “I think Microsoft has a right to protect its proprietary information.” Steele, one of Crippen’s three publicly appointed defense attorneys, said afterward that the government last year offered a plea deal in which the defendant would get probation and have his computer usage restricted in exchange for pleading to two felonies. Rejecting that and going to trial, she said, “was a roll of the dice.” “This was a risk that needed to be taken,” she added. A felony conviction, she said, would have precluded Crippen from fulfilling his dream of becoming a high school special-education and math teacher. Crippen said he has a year left of school before he gets a liberal arts degree from Cal State Fullerton. His studies have been on hold since he was indicted last year. “I’m going back to school,” he said.[/quote]

I disapprove of how video becomes inadmissable if filmed secretly. Surely it makes it more reliable?

What a spaz.

this is idotic this violates the bill of rights..so the evidence should be dismissed on account of the violation so techniclly speaking they have no case...

[QUOTE=faze;26465295]Doesn't the government have bigger fish to fry?[/QUOTE] apparently not

[QUOTE=revrend_slapaho;26465587]apparently not[/QUOTE] I hope you're being sarcastic.

[QUOTE=Hallucinate;26465430]I disapprove of how video becomes inadmissable if filmed secretly. Surely it makes it more reliable?[/QUOTE] If you were being prosecuted you probably wouldn't want to give away those rights.

If I was being prosecuted I've probably done something wrong so I wouldn't think it my place to say what evidence can and can not be used against me.

[QUOTE=Hallucinate;26465921]If I was being prosecuted I've probably done something wrong so I wouldn't think it my place to say what evidence can and can not be used against me.[/QUOTE] if you gotta break the law to uphold the law then whats the point

[QUOTE=Hallucinate;26465921]If I was being prosecuted I've probably done something wrong so I wouldn't think it my place to say what evidence can and can not be used against me.[/QUOTE] You don't necessarily have to do something wrong to be prosecuted.

[QUOTE=Hallucinate;26465921]If I was being prosecuted I've probably done something wrong so I wouldn't think it my place to say what evidence can and can not be used against me.[/QUOTE] you don't know how the justice system works do you?

The DMCA is a bunch of fucking bullshit and has always been. Microsoft is a greedy little fuck as usual, putting a guy behind bars for 10 years because they want to make an example. They don't give a shit about their console.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;26466781]The DMCA is a bunch of fucking bullshit and has always been. Microsoft is a greedy little fuck as usual, putting a guy behind bars for 10 years because they want to make an example. They don't give a shit about their console.[/QUOTE] Explain to me how MS is exactly in the wrong here when someone else performed illegal operations on their console.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26466812]Explain to me how MS is exactly in the wrong here when someone else performed illegal operations on their console.[/QUOTE] Because 360 modding doesn't really matter. Even if a person mods a console, and even if they still manage to play pirated games online, they're paying Microsoft $60 a year (soon to be $80) for the Live service. The only potentially bad thing that could happen is that they leak game ending online, and even then, that's not denting the corporation's wallet or anything. MS is just trying to stop modding by making an example out of one little guy.

[QUOTE=Agoat;26467054]Because 360 modding doesn't really matter. Even if a person mods a console, and even if they still manage to play pirated games online, they're paying Microsoft $60 a year (soon to be $80) for the Live service. The only potentially bad thing that could happen is that they leak game ending online, and even then, that's not denting the corporation's wallet or anything. MS is just trying to stop modding by making an example out of one little guy.[/QUOTE] Tell me again why Xbox Live is worth paying for?

what a waste of time

[QUOTE=goon165;26467492]Tell me again why Xbox Live is worth paying for?[/QUOTE] It really depends on what the people around you have. I play on Xbox because all of my friends have it.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26466812]Explain to me how MS is exactly in the wrong here when someone else performed illegal operations on their console.[/QUOTE] A man would have gotten 10 years in prison for messing with his own electronics.

[QUOTE=Hallucinate;26465430]I disapprove of how video becomes inadmissable if filmed secretly. Surely it makes it more reliable?[/QUOTE] For every "secret video" that is made which shows guilt there are likely to be hundreds or thousands that do not or worse, put you in a compromising situation which is not against the law. Would you want, say, a laptop given to you by a school taking photos of your undressing just so a few potheads could be caught? It's a crime in itself, and if a person did it that was not part of the US government it would be called stalking and voyeurism.

Hahaha good thing the judge has common sense. Modding the xbox is harder than you think. I charge like $30 per xbox 360. Also, taping in his home? wtf these guys are dicks. "Microsoft security employee Ken McGrail is the second witness, the man who analyzed the consoles that were seized from Crippen's home. McGrail, however, has admitted under oath to modifying the original Xbox and the Xbox 360 back when he was in college. " Sounds like a major bullshit job to me. By "analyzing consoles" he means putting in a modified disk a seeing if it runs (or using jungleflasher to check DVD firmware). He admits to doing the exact same thing in college too? What a bunch of clowns. Anyone who's a CS major hacks their xbox 360, iphone etc. It's a great way to save money and gain programming/security skills for job applications.

[QUOTE=Hallucinate;26465921]If I was being prosecuted I've probably done something wrong so I wouldn't think it my place to say what evidence can and can not be used against me.[/QUOTE] Help help this man raped me You're a rapist now

Wait, wouldn't the recording be breaking the 4th amendment? And if so, make the evidence unusable?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26466812]Explain to me how MS is exactly in the wrong here when someone else performed illegal operations on their console.[/QUOTE] Because if somebody wants to legitimately back up their games so in case the original gets scratched, they don't have to drop another $50 bucks on a new one, people like me have a habit of scratching games. Just like PC gaming, if I want to back up games that require a cd and use the backup to play, I can (usually) because I won't get banned from some Nazi-run online service.

And modding isn't illegal as far as I knew, only when pirating comes into play, and neither witness proved he pirated, just modded.

[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;26469800]Wait, wouldn't the recording be breaking the 4th amendment? And if so, make the evidence unusable?[/QUOTE] Why did you just reiterate the article?