TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu (07/28/90)
Less than halfway through the trial, and before it had presented its remaining witnesses, but government dropped all charges against Craig Neidorf. Defense Attorney Sheldon Zenner said that Prosecutor Bill Cook's decision was "in line with the highest standards of good government and ethical conduct." Zenner said that the government could have continued to the last and let the jury decide, but did the honorable thing. One reason for the surprise decision, according to one inside source, was that, as the testimony and cross-examination proceeded, the government realized that BellSouth had not been forthcoming about the extent of availability of the document and its worth. The prosecution apparently relied on the good faith of BellSouth because of the previously good working relationship it had with it and other telecom companies. Craig Neidorf was ecstatic about the decision, and feels vindicated. He can now resume his studies, complete his degree, and seriously consider law school. He *WILL NOT* resume publication of PHRACK! Zenner praised Bill Cook's decision to drop all charges, and added he is not angry, but appreciative. Zenner also felt that the the efforts of EFF, CuD, and the many individuals who supported Craig were instrumental in creating credibility and visibility for the case, generating ideas and information for the defense, and facilitating enlisting some of the prospective defense witnesses to participate. There are those who have taken the Ed Meese line and assumed that Craig must have done *something* or the government wouldn't be prosecuting him. Others have not been as strident, but have put their faith in "The System," assuming that the process works, and as long as Craig's procedural rights were protected, we should "wait and see." Others on the extreme end have said that those of us who supported Craig would change our minds once all the evidence has come out, and we were criticized for raising issues unfairly when the government, so it was claimed, couldn't respond because it had to protect Craig's privacy and was required to sit in silence. One prosecutor even said that when all the evidence comes out, Craig's supporters would slink back under their rocks. There is little cause for Craig's supporters to gloat, because the emotional and financial toll on Craig and his family were substantial. Dropping the charges hardly means that the system works, because if it worked, there would have been no charges to begin with. From the beginning, Craig expressed his willingness to cooperate, but the government made this impossible with its persecution. Craig's supporters, from the beginning, have published the evidence, explained the issues, and we can still see no reason for his indictment. The evidence presented by the government in some cases could have been presented as well by the defense to show that *no* criminal acts occurred. When witnesses must be coached into how to present negative evidence, and when little, if any, can be adequately constructed, one would think that somebody in the prosecutor's office might realize there simply isn't a case there. The government had no case in the beginning, they could not construct one, and they had nothing at the end. So, dropping the charges does not indicate that the system works, but rather that sometimes a just outcome may result despite unjust actions of over-zealous agents. The prosecution not only lost the case, but reduced its credibility in all areas of computer enforcement. The claim that a recent TELECOM Digest contributor made that the SS and others may intentionally overstep bounds to establish more clearly the lines of law may be true, but what about the costs to innocent victims of such Machiavellian tactics? Do we really live in such a cynical society that we find it acceptable to place lives, careers, and reputations at great risk? Now, however, it is time to move on and address the lessons learned from the experience. Some of the issues include how computerists can be protected from overzealousness, how law enforcement agents can perform their legitimate tasks of gathering evidence without violation rights, and how legislation can be written to reflect technological changes that protect us from predators while not subverting our rights with loose, broad, or inaccurate language. This has been the goal of Mitch and the EFF, and it is one on which we should *all* unite and focus our energy.