By GottaLaff
Surprise!
A surprise legal maneuver by the defense in the Sarah Palin hacking case could undermine key charges carrying the stiffest potential penalties.
A lawyer for the Tennessee college student charged with hacking into the Alaska governor’s Yahoo e-mail account last year says his client couldn’t have violated Palin’s privacy because a judge had already declared her e-mails a matter of public record.
Ooo, the smart college student's lawyer is smarter than the dufus governor's lawyer.
Additionally, photos that 20-year-old David Kernell allegedly obtained of Palin and her family were not private since the Palins are “the subjects of untold numbers of photo-ops,” the lawyer argued last week, in one of a slew of motions and memorandums attacking the government’s four-count federal indictment against Kernell. [...]
Davies implies in his motion to dismiss that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that Palin’s Yahoo correspondence was a public record, and cites case law showing that information that already appears on the public record can’t be considered private.
As for photos of Palin and family members that Kernell allegedly obtained from the account, Davies says there’s no expectation of privacy for the images, because the people depicted in the photos “continue to regularly and voluntarily appear in the national media.”
Without the privacy violation, the government has no felony case, Davies argues. Therefore he wants the charge reduced to a misdemeanor.
Calls to Davies and federal prosecutors in Tennessee were not returned, but Rasch finds the argument compelling.
“He’s also saying that what was in the e-mails would ultimately have been revealed [under litigation] therefore she had no expectation of privacy in it,” says Rasch. [...]
Rasch says the argument that e-mail is not property is “interesting” but will likely fail to get the wire fraud charge dismissed. However, if the matter goes to trial, he says the attorney might be able to convince a jury that Kernell simply accessed the e-mail out of curiosity, not out of an intent to defraud.
He notes that the issue over whether e-mail constitutes property and therefore carries privacy protection is one that the laws don’t cover sufficiently.
I have no idea whether the legal arguments will be successful or not, but they certainly provide additional Palin spectator sport amusement.