US Treason Definition vs Technology I know treason charges, in and of themselves, seems rarely pursued, in part because of its strict definition. However, I was interested in this restriction: No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Obviously, this was written in the late 1700s, with concerns of something like a "Star Chamber" being formed. However, we now have cameras and electronic records; non-witness means of verifying behavior. I was wondering if treason charges would be able to be brought in the following scenarios: A physical act of treason, captured on video recording An electronic act of treason, captured in an electronic record
Thus being a fundamental question of constitutional law, this translates into asking how SCOTUS would likely rule given a certain situation where e.g. there was no confession and the two-witness requirement is not satisfied. In the case of Cramer v. US, 325 U.S. 1, the direct testimony of two or more witnesses established that "Cramer met Thiel and Kerling on the occasions and at the places charged; that they drank together, and that they engaged long and earnestly in conversation", but "There was no proof by two witnesses of what they said, or in what language they conversed; no showing that Cramer gave them any information whatever of value to their mission, or that he had any to give; no showing of any effort at secrecy, they having met in public places, and no evidence that Cramer furnished them shelter, sustenance, or supplies, or that he gave them encouragement or counsel, or even paid for their drinks". The ruling (in favor of the defendant) focused on the fact that what was suffiently witnessed was not treasonous (drinks and conversation are not overt acts of treason). The court assigns some significance to the testimony of a single witness Kopp, stating that To the extent that his conviction rests upon such evidence, and it does to an unknown but considerable extent, it rests upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness not without strong emotional interest in the drama of which Cramer's trial was a part. The fact that the evidence was uncorroborated is dispositive in this case. There has not been a case where a conviction was supported only by circumstantial evidence, and the language of the Constitution plus the meaning of "testimony of a witness" is clear enough that it would be a major break with legal tradition to say that circumstantial evidence can substitute for direct evidence (testimony). A video recording cannot testify, only a person can testify. A person can testify that they watched a video, but they cannot testify that they directly witnessed defendant making a certain statement. Rather they can testify that they inferred from watching the video that defendant made a statement. This is not to say that some SCOTUS could not find a path for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, but that would be a significant break from existing tradition.
Yes, but it’s not in the Criminal Code It’s in the SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 1998. s6 prohibits using an optical surveillance device to record (or observe if the person is not a party) “private activity” without consent. The penalty is a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for 12 months or both.
Footage of an arrest is clearly evidence: tampering with it is a crime. Notwithstanding, destroying someone's personal possessions without authorisation is a crime. Accessing a computer (which all modern image and audio recorders are) without authorisation is also a crime.
The trial at issue is a civil trial over the publication of his book Permanent Record and the non-disclosure agreement that he signed connected to his employment, see the DoJ announcement, which also notes that this is separate from a future espionage trial. The remedy sought involves no imprisonment. In the US, the constitutional right to a jury trial applies to criminal cases. See the Arpaio case, where cases involving imprisonment of less than 6 months are not subject to the jury trial requirement. The right to a jury trial in civil cases is much more complicated and fact-specific, see this answer. Not yet in evidence is the question of whether his employment agreement included a waiver of jury trial w.r.t. non-disclosure, but one should assume that the government anticipated the scenario that a person would breach the NDA. ......
In my opinion, the news report is mischaracterizing the situation, either because the person who provided the information was confused or sloppy, or because the reporter was confused (it is impossible to tell on its face). Probable cause to arrest can, and often does, arise from an oral statement of a witness to a police officer, even if a witness refuses to back their oral statement to a police officer with a written one. And, in the narrow and strict sense, a complaint is a court document, usually signed by a prosecutor, commencing criminal legal proceedings against a criminal defendant (in lieu of an indictment, or pending the issuance of an indictment). A complaint in this narrow and strict sense would not usually be signed by an ordinary citizen witness to a crime. Sometimes, however, the word &quot;complaint&quot; is used in a broader, non-technical sense to refer either to any report made to police complaining about misconduct by someone, or in a different technical sense to refer to a written and signed report made by a witness to the police. It is likely that what really happened is that after receiving an oral report that the individual had threatened people, none of the witnesses who provided this oral report was willing to sign a document summarizing their oral report of being threatened for the police (perhaps out of fear of retaliation by the accused person, or out of a desire not to harm the accused person's long term future prospects). Then, the police department, as a matter of department policy (rather than any requirement imposed by law), declined to pursue a criminal case based upon the threats, when no one was willing to publicly and in writing commit to their oral reports, because they would need a testifying witness in a later court case.
This is known as a retroactive or ex post facto law. Such laws are explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution (Wikipedia reference), and are generally frowned on in jurisdictions where the rule of law applies, partly because it is difficult to prove criminal intent when your action was not at the time criminal.
A creative prosecutor could probably come up with a raft of charges. But you could start with the federal wiretapping statute, 18 USC 2511, and the anti-hacking statute, 18 USC 1030. Here is an indictment brought in 2012 under the anti-hacking statute against someone who distributed and used this kind of software. Depending on the facts and the jurisdiction, this may also constitute the tort of intrusion on privacy or seclusion, a tort recognized by the Restatement (Second) and actionable in many jurisdictions. The most common test is whether the invasion would be "offensive to a reasonable person." And no, contrary to the commenter's view, a "click to accept" license is not a get out of (literal) jail free card here. Courts interpret adhesion contracts liberally to favor the signer, and outrageous terms hidden in small print are not guaranteed to be enforceable, especially if the software is clearly designed to trick people into installing it. The license terms might even hurt you, by providing evidence of your intent to use the software for perving rather than its ostensible use. This is not an exhaustive list, and there may be additional state-level statutes that apply. Bottom line: yes, this is clearly illegal, and the courts will be reluctant to let you trick people into getting away with it.
In Wisconsin, right after the perjury law, they have a law prohibiting "false swearing". It applies if a person: Makes or subscribes 2 inconsistent statements under oath or affirmation or upon signing a statement pursuant to s. 887.015 in regard to any matter respecting which an oath, affirmation, or statement is, in each case, authorized or required by law or required by any public officer or governmental agency as a prerequisite to such officer or agency taking some official action, under circumstances which demonstrate that the witness or subscriber knew at least one of the statements to be false when made. The period of limitations within which prosecution may be commenced runs from the time of the first statement. So even if they couldn't actually get you for perjury, they could get you for violating this law. Perjury and false swearing are both class H felonies, so you can expect the same punishment. I am going to guess that the existence of this law suggests that it was needed to cover what would otherwise be a loophole in the perjury law, but I can't say for sure.