Hernandez lawyer never read cell phone search warrant (BostonGlobe)
Amusing quotes from the linked article:
"Before he departed, Collins said, he noted that the battery was out of the phone and the back that held the battery in place had been removed from the phone. He said Jones, Hernandez’s attorney, assured him that the phone was operational."
-- Seems like the lawyers did the prosecutors a favor by having the battery out: no remote wipe possible.
"During the extensive cross-examination of Fee Wednesday, there were many times that the exchange was anything but cordial.
At one point, when McCauley was questioning what Fee’s actions were leading up to the handover of the cellphone, the prosecutor asked, 'Do you consider yourself a competent lawyer?'
Fee paused for a few seconds and then fired back. 'Let me think about that,' he said in a coldly angry voice. 'Yes, I do.’"
-- LOL, too funny. I would have replied, "I suppose I'm not, because I presumed that prosecutors/police were honorable/reputable and did not act outside the scope of warrants.""Earlier today, State Police Sergeant Paul Baker testified he ordered Collins, once he obtained the cellphone, to wrap it in aluminum foil because he feared someone would remotely wipe the data off of it.
While investigators searched Hernandez’s home in North Attleborough, Baker contacted Collins in Boston, who went to the lawyers’ offices and collected the phone. While the trooper was on his way, Baker testified, he told Collins to protect the cellphone.
'I had been advised that people can remotely clean out the phone through a computer,' Baker testified. 'So I just wanted to make sure that he could put it into something that would prevent it from happening, that would interrupt the signal.'"
-- He wrapped the phone (which had no battery in it) in tinfoil?!? Not even a Faraday bag, lol? And this is a murder case! Anyway, if Hernandez and his attorneys had any inkling how to properly protect one's rights the BlackBerry would have been password locked and encrypted (battery removed a bonus but not necessary) when they handed it over to the government. Then instead of splitting hairs on whether the phone was in Hernandez's control/custody while in possession of his attorney(s) and subject to that particular search warrant they could be cordially discussing finer constitutional points -- whether an accused can be compelled/conscripted to help the police/government execute warrants and gather evidence against him** -- while the phone is in the hands of competent forensic experts working diligently on chipoff/decryption. (Were it my password locked and encrypted BlackBerry Q10, it's unlikely such efforts would be successful.)
**No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Addendum: I disagree with the MA SJC's recent sophistry where it ruled that providing the police with one's password is not witnessing. The accused has the right to remain silent. Lawyers in black dresses whose rulings are in violation of state and federal constitutions are not lawmakers, they are guilty of sedition. A ruling like that cannot lawfully stand. It's likely the government had a lot of leverage against that accused making it in his interest not to fight very hard.
↧