>No. Ulbricht was charged in multiple jurisdictions for multiple crimes.
So you keep saying.
>The murder-for-hire charges were brought up during the sentencing phase (after guilt was adjudicated).
Guilt of crimes which according to you are not related.
>The murder-for-hire charges were introduced at the sentencing hearings to counter evidence provided of Ulbricht's good character.
Maybe they affected sentencing then? And since the testimony has been reduced from "let's convict Ulbricht of murder for hire" to "character witness hearsay from disgraced and corrupt federal agents who themselves provoked the alleged crimes by stealing many hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ulbricht"; can sentencing be revisited by the court, or is a new trial required?
>No. Ulbricht was charged in multiple jurisdictions for multiple crimes.
So you keep saying.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You agree in other threads that Ulbricht was charged of separate crimes in New York and Maryland courts.
Guilt of crimes which according to you are not related.*
I'm not saying the crimes were unrelated at all. I'm saying that the sentencing phase of a trial is different from the guilt phase. In sentencing hearings, the normal rules of evidence are relaxed, so evidence that was excluded from trial can be considered.
Maybe they affected sentencing then?
That's exactly what I'm saying, and that's the reason those allegations and underlying evidence were introduced at the sentencing hearing: to show that Ulbricht deserves to be locked up for a long time.
And since the testimony has been reduced from "let's convict Ulbricht of murder for hire" to "character witness hearsay from disgraced and corrupt federal agents who themselves provoked the alleged crimes by stealing many hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ulbricht"; can sentencing be revisited by the court, or is a new trial required?
Separate case. Ulbricht was convicted of several counts, each of which by themselves would justify a 20+ year sentence or life sentence. It wasn't even necessary to bring up the murder-for-hire allegations. The prosecution only did that because Ulbricht's lawyer tried to argue that he was really just a good guy.
The sentencing can be appealed, but there's a 0% chance that he would succeed at reducing the sentence given that it's well within the established guidelines for crimes of this nature. It's also possible to appeal the underlying conviction, but there's almost 0% chance of that as well, since the murder-for-hire allegations and the acts of the corrupt Maryland federal agents were not relevant to the New York convictions.
So you keep saying.
>The murder-for-hire charges were brought up during the sentencing phase (after guilt was adjudicated).
Guilt of crimes which according to you are not related.
>The murder-for-hire charges were introduced at the sentencing hearings to counter evidence provided of Ulbricht's good character.
Maybe they affected sentencing then? And since the testimony has been reduced from "let's convict Ulbricht of murder for hire" to "character witness hearsay from disgraced and corrupt federal agents who themselves provoked the alleged crimes by stealing many hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ulbricht"; can sentencing be revisited by the court, or is a new trial required?