One thing I'm curious about (but haven't seen mentioned yet), is whether the bitcoins that were seized were Ulbrichts or "DPR's". That might seem like a silly distinction (as obviously the state is arguing that Ulbrict is DPR), but I can imagine a case where it's actually important.
i.e.: If the FBI identified the bitcoins as part of their efforts investigating DPR, for Ulbrict to claim ownership of them might actually be bad for his defense. On the other hand, if they were seized when he was apprehended (presumably they were stored on his laptop), than I think it becomes much less problematic for him to assert that they are his.
Comments
One thing I'm curious about (but haven't seen mentioned yet), is whether the bitcoins that were seized were Ulbrichts or "DPR's". That might seem like a silly distinction (as obviously the state is arguing that Ulbrict is DPR), but I can imagine a case where it's actually important.
i.e.: If the FBI identified the bitcoins as part of their efforts investigating DPR, for Ulbrict to claim ownership of them might actually be bad for his defense. On the other hand, if they were seized when he was apprehended (presumably they were stored on his laptop), than I think it becomes much less problematic for him to assert that they are his.
I would imagine it's like all criminal cases where if they find cash lying around during an arrest they seize it.