Hans Reiser

Technocrat

Hans Reiser

Bruce Perens

Wed Apr 30 19:23:40 -0700 2008

About+Technocrat.net.

manage

So, Hans got convicted. There will be an appeal. By all accounts, he convinced the jury of his own guilt by going on the stand against his attorney's advice. If he'd stayed off of the stand, he might have come off with a lesser charge (voluntary manslaughter, whatever) or might have been acquitted.

I had lunch with Hans once and had a short conversation with Nina on the phone. I had started to become involved consulting for Hans' company, but he wasn't offering very much per hour, and then other opportunities came up. Later on, I was glad not to have been involved.

Before you ask, I think the jury made the right decision. The evidence seems to have been thinner than anyone would like, but there were enough items to destroy a reasonable doubt.

LWN wrote a piece on the conviction that goes into Hans' conduct with the kernel developers over the past few years - which was far from pretty, and didn't do anything to help his company.

This doesn't mean any damage for Linux. Reiserfs was just another file system in a reasonably large collection of high-performance file systems. There were some really good ideas in it, that hopefully others will implement. Its development and support will probably continue, under the GPL license, by those who care to do so. Because of the GPL, everybody has the right to support and develop it.

Unsurprising

Thomas Lord

Wed Apr 30 19:36:50 -0700 2008
manage

If you read some of his hyping of Reiser FS from the mindset of a hacker familiar with the concepts and tech he was bandying about it was clear, years ago, before the Nina incident, that the dude was both batshit crazy yet skilled enough to keep the FS afloat.

I did read it from that perspective, came to that conclusion, and then this event happened.

-t

Two lessons

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Apr 30 22:09:29 -0700 2008
manage

When your lawyer says to shut up, don't think you're so smart that you can keep talking. Being persuasive to a jury of normal people, and doing well under cross-examination, are social skills that intelligence alone won't confer on you. This sort of thing is a known phenomenon: my wife was on a jury in a drunk driving case where the jury didn't find the prosecution's evidence conclusive but convicted based on the defendant's testimony.
The other thing to notice is that the right to remain silent benefits the socially clumsy and people from cultural backgrounds different from the jury's, whether they're guilty or not.

Two lessons

Thomas Lord

Wed Apr 30 23:16:10 -0700 2008
manage

That meme you are spreading is going around a lot. It happened on /. too in relation to the Reiser case. So, it is because of that larger trend that I feel compelled to say:

You are full of s-.

Don't commit horrible crimes. That's the first bit of advice worth having.

If you do commit a horrible crime, ok then... own up to it. Just explain yourself. Explain why it seemed reasonable. Be open.

If you haven't committed a horrible crime but seem to be damningly accused of so doing: get loud. Hoi poloi is a lot smarter than you think. Jury selection procedures may very well put you at a severe disadvantage if that's what it comes to (the system is famously fraudulent at many levels). Oh well -- you are that screwed anyway. Be loud and hope your true case is heard by someone who can help.

-t

Two lessons

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Apr 30 23:28:44 -0700 2008
manage

You are full of s-.
As, presumably, are all the attorneys who spend their careers watching real court cases from the inside and know all the tricks.
The reason to hire a professional is to get said professional's experience-based advice. If your lawyer thinks you're going to do a good job testifying in your own defense, pay attention. If your lawyer thinks you're going to alienate everybody, pay attention.

i don't cotton to that

Thomas Lord

Wed Apr 30 23:35:10 -0700 2008
manage

If you are offering advice about "how to get away with stuff", well, please don't.

If you are offering advice about how to cynically give up on the notion of civil society, well, please don't.

-t

i don't cotton to that

mcrbids

Thu May 01 00:53:41 -0700 2008
manage

Forget the trial, the case, everything.

If you hire a professional at professional rates (typically, around $150/hour and up, way up) in order to perform a professional service, you'd do well to listen to the professional about the best way to go about doing the service he's performing.

Yes, step 1 of staying out of prison involves not breaking any (major) laws. But as a statistic, something like 1/3 of imprisoned people who end up doing DNA testing (after they've been convicted) are found to be innocent and are exonerated. Not 1/3 of inmates, but 1/3 of those tested. Still, it's enough to believe that even when all other available evidence points to you, you may still be innocent!

i don't cotton to that

Albert ARIBAUD

Thu May 01 01:29:25 -0700 2008
manage

It might be also that he simply offers advice on how to best conduct an activity, as any expert in any field will do.

Assuming that the advice is on 'how to get away with it' is assuming guilt, which I consider to be to far away from my country's présomption d'innocence for my balanced comfort.

Imagine yourself surrounded by bad circumstancial evidence yet innocent. From the inside, you'd be tempted to follow the advice of your lawyer, right? Yet from the outside (and especially those outside people who suffered from your alleged action) he'd be a bastard only interested in helping you 'get away with it'. Now re-run the test case (pun intended) with you being 'guily' instead of 'innocent'. No difference from the outside, yet a hell of a lot different overall, depending on guilt or innocence.
Metaphorically speaking, in every case half the lawyers (in civil cases; in criminal ones, add the prosecutors) help bastards get away with something, and the other half help poor guys out of trouble. Just depends on where you stand. And the disturbing news is that both halves exist in any lawer, if you tally all the cases he is involved in during his carreer.

Also, don't assume the lawyer necessarily knows the truth about the case. Says a french lawyer in his blog (written in french so I don't think the URL is worthwhile, but just ask if you want it): one reflex of the guilty (especially one who thinks they're smart), is to lie to his lawyer, in hopes that if the lawyer gets fooled, so will the judge and/or jury.

As an aside, and back on-topic, I haven't made up my mind on whether Reiser is innocent or guilty; the evidence is disturbing yet not conclusive--which is of course one major reason why this case needs a trial and jury. Depending on how Reiser's lawyer and Reiser himself act during the appeal, the outcome could be diferent.

Albert.

i don't cotton to that

Michael Smith

Thu May 01 05:37:15 -0700 2008
manage

Depending on how Reiser's lawyer and Reiser himself act during the appeal, the outcome could be diferent.

Reading posts on slashdot about this (I know, not a good source of legal advice) it seems that Reiser would not be able to appeal the jury's verdict. He would only be able to appeal the actions of the judge.

i don't cotton to that

Martin Blank

Thu May 01 07:53:42 -0700 2008
manage

Verdicts may be appealed based on significant new evidence or when errors of law or procedure were made that were significant enough to potentially affect the outcome of the case. Reiser would have to either come up with something new (recent photographs of Nina in Russia, for example), or show that the judge misapplied the law or that there was prosecutorial misconduct, such as failure to fully disclose exculpatory evidence. Short of that, appeals are likely to fail.

i don't cotton to that

Albert ARIBAUD

Thu May 01 08:41:55 -0700 2008
manage

Thanks for pointing this out; in France appeals do not need to fulfill such conditions.

i don't cotton to that

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Sat May 03 16:09:27 -0700 2008
manage

The notion of civil society includes checks and balances on government power, and protections for the unpopular and the different. The right to remain silent is one of these.
Consider as an example someone from a culture where it's considered rude to make eye contact with an authority figure. Put that person on the stand and the jury will think the person is shifty, ashamed to meet their eyes, or something along those lines.
Consider as another example someone from a culture where it's expected to answer a question with elaborate storytelling. Put that person on the stand and the jury will think the person is dodging questions.
Being right and being believed are two quite different things, and you can probably draw examples of the difference from your work experience.
Being right and being able to field prosecution dirty tricks are also quite different things. I used to work with a criminal lawyer and heard some of his war stories. One was of a guy who had said "Good morning" to the police who searched his place. He took the stand at his trial. The prosecution actually turned that against him: "You had the opportunity to chat with the officers, then? You even wished them a good morning? AND YOU NEVER ONCE PROTESTED YOUR INNOCENCE?!". An innocent IQ 100 person might be well advised to avoid situations like that. An innocent person who rubs everyone the wrong way when he speaks might be well advised to avoid situations like that.

i don't cotton to that

Mathinker

Sun May 04 22:11:24 -0700 2008
manage

> The prosecution actually turned that against him

It just goes to show that taking the stand has relatively large risks which inexperienced people cannot estimate well.

Personally, I think that would have been a golden opportunity to get some good use from the (specious) "people who have nothing to hide do not need privacy" arguments of the pervasive surveillance advocates. But I also am pretty sure that I'd fail totally to do it well when put in opposition to a skilled attorney.