[srj]

It's surprising to me that the prosecutor is allowed to essentially insinuate crimes to influence the jury, without the need to prove them. That seems to undermine the process because it creates a "there's smoke so there must be fire" mentality for the jury.

[tveita]

There was plenty of evidence that he ordered the hits, and the defense had the opportunity to address the evidence in court. The chat logs go far beyond "insinuation"

It's ridiculous that people are pretending there is any doubt about his guilt because they like crypto and/or drugs.

[echoangle]

So why not properly charge him then?

Do you not think the optics are a bit weird when you sentence someone to life for something relatively small, but the reason is another crime you’re very sure he did but you didn’t bother to charge him with?

[lII1lIlI11ll]

Of course it is. Throwing in potential evidence of unrelated crimes to sway other people's (specifically jury's) opinion about the defendant without formally charging him is exactly what the word "insinuation" means[0]:

the action of suggesting, without being direct, that something unpleasant is true

[0]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insinuat...

[sebzim4500]

> There was plenty of evidence that he ordered the hits, and the defense had the opportunity to address the evidence in court

Clearly not that much evidence if the state didn't bother to prosecute those charges. And why would they? The judge sentenced him as though he had been found guilty of them.

[jari_mustonen]

Coincidentally, on the same day, SCOTUS confirmed in Andrew v. White ruling [1] that admitting prejudicial evidence violates due process rights under the 14th Amendment.

1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-6573_m647.pdf

[RetpolineDrama]

It's a gross miscarriage of justice.

The gov should have to prove you committed a crime before that information is admissible at sentencing.