Posted on 01/31/2012 12:16:27 PM PST by SmithL
A federal appeals court has rejected a former University of Tennessee college student's appeal against being convicted for hacking former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account during the 2008 campaign.
Lawyers for the ex-student, David Kernell, said the felony obstruction of justice statute he was convicted under was so vague as to be unconstitutional.
In particular, they argued, Kernell had no obvious notice that a federal investigation was underway before he deleted files from his computer and defragmented his hard disk.
However, according to Politico, in an opinion Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said the law was clear enough to be enforced and it covered the kind of conduct Kernell allegedly engaged in.
Defense lawyers told a jury that Kernell was engaged in a foolish prank and not a malevolent crime in September 2008 when he used a "lost password" feature on Yahoo to gain control of Palin's e-mail account and post screenshots of her messages and at least one family photo.
After the jury convicted him in 2010 on the obstruction charge and a misdemeanor of computer intrustion (and acquitted him or deadlocked on two other charges), Kernell was sentenced to a year and a day in jail.
Kernell, an economics student and son of a Democratic state legislator in Tennessee, appealed the obstruction conviction, but not the computer intrusion one.
In the meantime, he reported to jail last January and was released in November, according to the Bureau of Prisons web site.
Federal sentences of more than a year are usually reduced 15 percent for so-called "good time."
A lawyer for Kernell said he plans to ask the full bench of the 6th Circuit to review the case. (ANI)
I’ve no doubt that Brian Williams and whoever is running the nightly news at the other two networks this week will lead off with this story tonight. What? No?
Fry ‘im.
GOOD NEWS
Since when is a hacker getting convicted a lead news story anywhere?
Sooooo- the authorities are supposed to ‘warn’ the alleged perp with enough time that the perp can dispose of all the evidence against him???
Ha Ha Ha Ha........
If you can’t do the time—don’t do the crime, sucker.
Sarah Palin hate on display. Pretty funny when you spend the rest of your time supposedly protecting us from the evil bloggers....
So hacking her mail is more important than another person's mail?
Why? Is she "more equal than others"?
Could they not tack on another year or two please, for being a wise guy?
“son of a Democratic state legislator in Tennessee,”
Who ALSO happened to be Obama’s 2008 Tennessee campaign chair.
Funny how the article ‘Forgets’ to mention that, isn’t it?
It took you a while to get around to finally admitting your hate for Sarah. Initially it was bashing her supporters, but finally the 'truth' came out. But since we are not suppose to drag from threads I won't violate that 'rule'. So I suppose you would not be bothered in the least if somebody hacked your e-mail. Equality?
“son of a Democratic state legislator in Tennessee,”
Who ALSO happened to be Obama’s 2008 Tennessee campaign chair.
Funny how the article ‘Forgets’ to mention that, isn’t it?
worth repeating.
Er.. no. I don't like her. I don't hate her but I sure don't like her. Never said different.
So I suppose you would not be bothered in the least if somebody hacked your e-mail. Equality?
I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't expect it to be a lead news story.
That’s because you’re a grumpy old fart that very few people like. In fact I’m sure the only people who do like you are grumpy old farts.
That comes close to being tagline material right there.
Er.. no. I don't like her. I don't hate her but I sure don't like her. Never said different.
Hon you are not being honest, because initially you bashed anyone who supported her, but finally, recently you exposed the 'truth' that you did NOT like her. Bully for you. Talk about some being more equal than the rest, fits you like a glove.
So I suppose you would not be bothered in the least if somebody hacked your e-mail. Equality?
I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't expect it to be a lead news story.
Sorry, but, as lame an answer as there can be found. Eventually reality presents itself.
initially you bashed anyone who supported her
No, I bashed over-the-top worship of someone I don't like.
Wouldn't you? How about Obama worshipers? Bash them much?
Maybe bash 'em a bit for thinking he's a messiah? Same same.
Sorry, I don't think her Yahoo! account getting hacked is
particularly earth-shattering news. You are free to do so.
Why is the fact that I fail to revere her such a problem for you?
Picture someone hacking Candidate Obama’s account and see what the response would be.
I think the kid should appeal a few more times just to make sure his Democrat daddy’s bank account is good and empty.
However, I find it somewhat worrisome that they can nail this jerk on an "obstruction" charge for modifying his own hard drive, unless he did it after a court order barred him from doing so.
This seems to me a fifth amendment issue, the right not to testify against yourself. And it's implied corollary the right to not retain evidence against yourself.
There is an increasing trend of busting people not on the crime itself, but on vague indirect behaviors not directly part of the crime.
Of course, any conviction of FReepers would be posthumous, after they pry our "arsenals" and Bibles from our cold dead fingers.
'revere' is your word, I 'revere' no flesh being. Sarah to some of US was a breath of fresh air that said what some of US had no opportunity to say because of bullies whose sole purpose in life is to ridicule.
Well, now you're getting into how the media would respond.
I have no control over that. Do you? No? Then what's the point of speculating?
Fact is I just don't see Palin's Yahoo! account being hacked (how long ago?)
as being any kind of major news. Sorry if that chafes you. She isn't the Pope.
Apparently you view any slight to Palin to be high treason.
The right to destroy evidence?
Don’t think so, obsruction of justice would be unenforceable. The common law is clear that no one has the right to destroy evidence simply because it’s incriminating to an accused.
The malice in his actions is as clear as day. So nor “prank.” It was an effort to defame her and obstruct her right to free speech.
Well perhaps obstruction of justice charges should be limited to the severity of the root crime.
It's just ridiculous to me that if you cover your tracks after committing a misdemeanor, that you become a felon for covering your tracks when you were only trying to cover up a misdemeanor.
The flip side of this is that we now know that we should never say anything to law enforcement. Because if they can construe something you said as false, they they can get you for obstruction of justice, whether or not you are guilty of any crime. (ex Martha Stewart)
ZOT!
WHY? For liking Sarah?
Not you.
The other guy - he's gone....!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.