Silk Road’s mastermind Ross Ulbricht fails to secure rehearing in appeal case

Sourced from: https://financefeeds.com/silk-roads-mastermind-ross-ulbricht-fails-secure-rehearing-appeal-case/

The court should rehear this matter en banc since, according to Ulbricht, it involves a question of exceptional significance that the board did not address, specifically, if trial counsel’s refusal to give the suspect with his entire client file (1) complies with all the defendant’s exercise of his right to pursue Rule 33 aid; and (2) established good reason for the defendant to get an extension of time as needed to obtain his complete document, and then research investigative leads which may be in his document, in the hunt for new signs that could take a new trial.
The panel decision, states Ulbricht, struggles with the decision of the court in a different case in which the court reversed a trial court’s denial of a new trial motion on the premise that the defendant learned after identification, that a juror had lied in her responses during voir dire in order to be picked to serve on the jury.

There are no details about the rationale for your decision.

Ross William Ulbricht, also called Dread Pirate Roberts, the mastermind of Silk Road, the notorious market that used Bitcoins for its own trades, has had his own attempt to secure a rehearing within his appeal case nixed from the Court.

Before this week, a panel at the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an Order effectively nixing Ulbricht’s petition for rehearing. The Order states that the panel that decided the charm has considered the request for panel rehearing, and the members of the Court have considered the request for rehearing. The petition is denied.
FinanceFeeds –
Permit ’s recall that, on February 7, 2019, Ulbricht submitted his Petition for Panel Rehearing or for Rehearing . From the document, Ulbricht outlined several points.

Finally, Ulbricht claimed this matter should be reheard by the panel because the panel decision shows that the board missed or misapprehended several points, for example

  • That Ulbricht argued that he needed his customer file from trial counselor so as to effectively investigate his Rule 33 assert, not since he believed that file might contain just discovered evidence;
  • which Ulbricht couldn’t obtain prior to trial the pen/trap information he seeks because the government refused to produce it, despite his petition ;
  • Ulbricht did not have reason to think that the authorities had employed illegal electronic surveillance of his home in their pen/trap data group, prior to the publication of American Kingpin in 2017; along with
  • the authorities notified Ulbricht three days ahead of the Rule 33 filing deadline, so that they had just located pen/trap data not previously revealed, and might send that to Ulbricht’s counsel.