nagle@uunet.uu.net (John Nagle) (07/31/90)
I was one of the technical experts working with the defense
team, and have just returned from Chicago. For now, I will just post
the press release issued by Neidorf's lawyers, but I will have more to
say at a future time.
John Nagle
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEIDORF PRESS RELEASE
Chicago, Illinois -- July 27, 1990
In an extrraordinary development, the U.S. Attorney today
dismissed the indictment in the trial of Craig Neidorf, the editor and
publisher of "Phrack", a magazine of the computer underground.
Neidorf, a 20-year-old political science major at the University of
Missouri, had faced charges stemming from the publication of allegedly
proprietary information relating to the 911 emergency system. The
government's decision to dismiss the indictment is highly unusual.
The dismissal came a week into the trial after Neidorf's attorney,
Sheldon Zenner, of Kattin Muchin & Zavis, established that Neidorf had
never facilitated intrusions into any computer system. Also crucial
to the defense was Zenner's illustration of the fact that much of the
information contained in the allegedly proprietary document was
publicly available.
Zenner said the government's decision came after he provided the
prosecutors copies of publicly available documents which demonstrated
that the document Neidorf published electronically contained no secret
information. "The information in the document Craig electronically
published was easily available to anyone," Zenner stated. "It was so
public that BellSouth knew five months before Craig ever obtained the
document that it was electronically accessable to anyone with a
computer." he continued.
Zenner, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, stated that, "The
dismissal is in the finest tradition of the U.S. Attorney's office.
They dismissed the case because it was the right thing to do. Craig
did no more than publish an article, something the First Amendment
allows him to do." Court observers cannot recall the U.S. Attorney
ever before dismissing a case once the trial commenced.
Neidorf and his family expressed relief and pleasure with the
outcome. Neidorf plans to finish his senior year at the University of
Missouri, and hopes to enter law school following graduation.
Zenner is a partner in the law firm of Katten Muchin & Zavis, and
is the head of the firm's White Collar Crime practice group. In
addition to its White Collar Crime practice, Katten Muchin practices
in the areas of litigation, corporate law, securities, banking, and
bankruptcy, labor, and estate planning.
Inquiries should be directed to
Sheldon Zenner
Katten Muchin & Zavis
525 W. Monroe Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60606-3693
312-902-5200"Michael P. Deignan" <mpd@anomaly.sbs.com> (08/03/90)
In article <10254@accuvax.nwu.edu> apple!well.sf.ca.us!well! nagle@uunet.uu.net (John Nagle) writes: >Zenner said the government's decision came after he provided the >prosecutors copies of publicly available documents which demonstrated >that the document Neidorf published electronically contained no secret >information. Should this information not have been made available during "discovery" of the judicial process? If it were made available during the discovery process, then why did this trial ever get off the ground? Or, did the prosecution merely ignore the fact that this evidence existed in the pursuit of a witch-hunt? Michael P. Deignan # mpd@anomaly.sbs.com # ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Author, SCO Ported Software Compendium, and Maintainer of Online Archives Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 Login: xxcp Password: xenix (local rmail ok) Files: /usr/spool/uucppublic/SOFTLIST /usr/spool/uucppublic/ARCHELP
mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) (08/05/90)
In article <10400@accuvax.nwu.edu> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >In article <10254@accuvax.nwu.edu> apple!well.sf.ca.us!well! >nagle@uunet.uu.net (John Nagle) writes: >>Zenner said the government's decision came after he provided the >>prosecutors copies of publicly available documents which demonstrated >>that the document Neidorf published electronically contained no secret >>information. >Should this information not have been made available during >"discovery" of the judicial process? >If it were made available during the discovery process, then why did >this trial ever get off the ground? Or, did the prosecution merely >ignore the fact that this evidence existed in the pursuit of a >witch-hunt? Discovery is a process in which each side in litigation can compel the production of information of various sorts from the other side. Discovery, which plays a major role in civil proceedings, is very limited in criminal cases, for a couple of reasons. First, the right of prosecution to discover information from a defendant is vastly limited by the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and against forced testimony. Even if the defendant has exculpatory information in her possession, it sometimes is strategically unwise to show all your cards to the other side, which may use that information to identify and fix weak spots in its own case. Second, prosecutors typically rely on police investigation and grand-jury proceedings, not discovery, to gather evidence prior to a criminal trial. Because their cases are made up almost entirely of evidence gathered through these two processes, oversights on the prosecutors' part may go undetected for a long period of time. Incidentally, Sheldon Zenner, the lawyer who defended Neidorf, has publicly thanked the Electronic Frontier Foundation for its efforts in raising consciousness and providing resources for Neidorf's defense. One of the things that was no doubt very helpful to Zenner was the discussion here and in other newsgroups concerning the inflated valuation of the Bell text files that Riggs copied and sent to Neidorf. One of the sad aspects of the dismissal of the case against Neidorf is that other defendants in these prosecutions pled guilty before the weakness of the prosecution's case concerning the E911 file became apparent. Robert Riggs, who was named with Neidorf in a joint indictment, is a felon now, even though the whole issue of federal jurisdiction in this case has been called into question by the revelation that the E911 files were publicly available, and that even had they not been, the valuation given them by Bell South was questionable at best. (The desire to give federal prosecutors jurisdiction was almost certainly the reason for the inflated price tag put on the E911 documents by Bell South and/or AT&T.) I remind those who've followed this story that certain people in this newsgroup, including Gene Spafford, assured us that we'd change out tune once the facts came out. Well, the facts are out now. Mike Godwin, UT Law School mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (512) 346-4190