Archive for the ‘Lori Drew Trial’ Category

MPAA Says Copyright-Treaty Critics Hate Hollywood

glickman

If you don’t back a copyright treaty being negotiated in secret, you must want to destroy Hollywood, its blockbuster movies and all the jobs they create.

At least that’s the message from the Motion Picture Association of America.

It’s spelled out in a Thursday memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging lawmakers to support the Obama administration’s efforts toward negotiating an intellectual property agreement with more than a dozen countries.

Dan Glickman, the MPAA’s chairman, informs lawmakers that millions of film-related jobs are in peril because of internet piracy. Simply put, those who don’t back the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting and Trade Agreement don’t support intellectual property rights, he wrote.

“Opponents of ACTA are either indifferent to this situation, or actively hostile toward efforts to improve copyright enforcement worldwide,” Glickman wrote.

That’s an insultingly black-and-white viewpoint. It’s also not an accurate description of the treaty’s critics.

The reason many groups distrust the accord is simple: It’s being negotiated in secret, the Obama administration has declared it a “national security” issue and the chief executive has filled his administration with at least five former intellectual property attorneys from the Recording Industry Association of America.

What’s more, all that we know about the proposal has been generated by leaks. Here is what the most recent leak of two week’s ago suggests:

A European Commission memo written by an unnamed EU official shows the United States might want ISPs around the world to punish suspected, repeat downloaders with a system of “graduated response” — code for a three-strikes policy that results in the customer eventually being disconnected from the internet with the ISP alone deciding what constitutes infringement and fair use.

Since there’s no such policy in the United States now, the demands could end up being foisted on all Americans through a decidedly undemocratic process. We described that as policy laundering at its finest.

Public Knowledge, a “copyleft” lobbying group who has seen the unfinished treaty’s text, blasted Glickman’s comment, which comes weeks after the MPAA urged the Federal Communications Commission to support internet filtering of unauthorized copyrighted material.

“We do want to make certain that the rights of internet users are not trampled by overwhelming government power asserted at the behest of a single special interest,” Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge’s president, said in a statement. She added that it is “inappropriate to ask ISPs and application designers to do what the studios themselves have found impossible to do: manage security to prevent all illegal copying.”

Along with Public Knowledge, the movie studios, internet providers, electronics companies and lawyers for the recording industry have been given access to the text of the treaty that has not finalized. We’ve asked many of them to provide details, but confidentiality agreements with the Obama administration forbid that.

While Glickman would do well by apologizing for his George W. Bush-style “With us or against us” smearing of his debate opponents, we applaud his call to unwind the secrecy surrounding the accord.

We appreciate the U.S. government’s efforts thus far to broaden its consultative process on the ACTA. Despite these exceptional efforts, the protests persist, fostering apprehension over the agreement’s substance. We understand that the ACTA parties agree on the desirability to provide meaningful opportunities for the public to provide input. We support this objective and encourage the U.S. government to direct that process so that we can engage in a meaningful dialogue on substance rather than procedural matters.

Glickman’s trying to say that secrecy breeds paranoia — and often rightly so. We’re glad to see the MPAA embrace the idea of government sunshine.

Negotiating nations concluded a sixth-round of top-secret negotiations two weeks ago. The countries include Australia, Canada, European Union states, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.

The countries are to meet again in January.

See Also:

Prosecutors Set Stage to Appeal Lori Drew Ruling

lori_drew_500px

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have filed a notice of appeal in the Lori Drew cyberbullying case, where a judge threw out the government’s case against Drew for allegedly using a fake MySpace account to drive a teenage girl to suicide.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krause filed the notice (.pdf) on Friday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, indicating that the government may appeal a judge’s ruling in July that acquitted Drew of three misdemeanor counts.

The federal prosecution of Drew relied on a controversial reading of a federal hacking law — essentially prosecuting Drew for violating MySpace’s terms of service by not being truthful in a online profile.

But U.S. District Judge George Wu said the government’s theory was unconstitutional.

Letting that interpretation stand would ultimately have given prosecutors the power to criminally prosecute anyone for violating a website’s terms of service, Wu reasoned, and “would convert a multitude of otherwise innocent internet users into misdemeanant criminals.”

Drew and two others created a fake MySpace account to harass 13-year-old Megan Meier, who later committed suicide. Federal prosecutors got involved after local authorities could not find a way to bring charges.

Friday’s filing, however, doesn’t mean the government will pursue an appeal.

In July, Wu conditionally overturned the jury convictions, which had found Drew guilty of three counts of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for breaking MySpace’s terms of service agreement.

Wu’s ruling, however, did not become official until he filed his written judgment on Aug. 31, at which point the clock for filing a notice to appeal began ticking.

The Court of Appeals will now have to set a schedule for filing the opening brief in the appeal. Mrozek said given the court’s current schedule, it could be four months or longer before the government’s brief is due.

Drew was initially charged with three felony counts of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and one count of felony conspiracy to violate the statute. Last November, a jury convicted her instead of lesser misdemeanor charges on the first three counts and deadlocked on the conspiracy charge. Prosecutors said at the time they weren’t sure whether they’d attempt to retry Drew on the fourth charge.

Eight months later, Wu overturned the convictions on grounds that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.

Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department prosecutor who now teaches law at George Washington University, plans to work on Drew’s defense if the government pursues an appeal.

Kerr wasn’t available for comment, but on his blog on Friday he noted that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just recently rejected a number of cases that prosecutors in the Drew case had relied on for their broad interpretation of the CFAA.

Photo: AP Lori Drew

See also:

Judge Postpones Lori Drew Sentencing, Weighs Dismissal

lori_drew_500px

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday postponed the sentencing of Lori Drew, the 50-year-old woman convicted of unauthorized computer access last year in the country’s first federal cyberbullying prosecution. 

After an hour of discussion with prosecutors and Drew’s defense attorney, U.S. District Judge George Wu indicated he was still weighing a defense motion to overturn the jury verdict in the case and that he needs to review transcripts from the trial to weigh both the motion to overturn and the sentencing. Sentencing is now set for July 2.

Wu peppered Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krause with questions about using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to prosecute Drew and the government’s assertions about who constitutes a victim in the case.

“Using this particular statute in this particular way is so weird,” Wu said at one point.

Drew was convicted of three misdemeanor charges for unauthorized computer access and faces a maximum sentence of three years and a $300,000 fine. Although prosecutors are seeking the maximum, probation authorities, in a pre-sentencing report sent to the court recently, recommended probation and a $5,000 fine.

Drew’s attorneys agreed with the probation recommendation but are still holding out hope that Wu will throw out the verdict.

Last November, after the prosecution rested, the defense sought a directed acquittal on grounds that prosecutors failed to prove their case. If granted, the motion would overturn the misdemeanors for lack of evidence and result in a judgment of acquittal. Defense attorneys file such motions on a regular basis, and judges generally overrule them fairly quickly. But Wu seemed to seriously consider granting the motion and has now delayed his ruling for more than five months.

On Monday, Wu seemed no closer to ruling on the motion.

Prior to announcing that he needed more time, Wu heard from the parents of Megan Meier — Ron and Tina Meier. Both had submitted sealed statements to the court prior to the hearing. Ron Meier spoke with a quavering voice as he described what Megan was like and how her death affected his family.

“I am no longer married to Megan’s mom,” he said, halting to catch his emotions. “We are both financially ruined, and I have gone through a living hell.”

Wu, who did not look at Ron Meier during the first part of the father’s statement, turned his attention to him when his voice broke. But the judge showed no other indication that he was absorbed in what the father was saying.

Ron Meier disclosed that after news about Drew’s role in the cyberbullying went public and the Drews received death threats, he had been advised by authorities to maintain a daily log of his activities and make sure that he was never alone, because if something happened to Lori Drew or her family, he was told, he would be the first suspect.

Ron Meier closed by saying that Drew and other cyberbullies like her needed to be punished. Even if she hadn’t intended to harm his daughter, she needed to be held responsible for the consequences. Drunk drivers, he said, don’t set out to kill someone, “yet they’re still held accountable for their actions.”

Tina Meier, who has launched a foundation in Megan’s name and has traveled the country speaking out against cyberbullying, began her speech by recounting a number of details she had already mentioned at trial, prompting an impatient Wu to gently interrupt her, saying she had already testified to the facts.

Tina Meier closed her speech by saying, “This is not just about Megan Meier. This is about all of the people who go through [cyberbullying] on a daily basis.”

Continue Reading “Judge Postpones Lori Drew Sentencing, Weighs Dismissal” »

Lori Drew to Be Sentenced Today

lori_drew_500px

LOS ANGELES — Lori Drew, the 50-year-old woman convicted of unauthorized computer access last year in the country’s first federal cyberbullying prosecution, is scheduled to be sentenced Monday afternoon at 2:00 p.m.

Drew was convicted of three misdemeanor charges for unauthorized computer access, and faces a maximum sentence of three years and a $300,000 fine. Probation authorities, in a pre-sentencing report sent to the court, have recommended probation and a $5,000 fine for Drew.

Drew’s attorneys argue that the convictions should be overturned, but, in the alternative, accept the probation recommendation. But the lawyers said in a filing that a $5,000 fine would be a hardship for Drew, who had to close a home-operated business when her involvement in the cyberbullying case led to harassment of her and her customers. 

Prosecutors are seeking the maximum three-year sentence, but agreed with the $5,000 fine recommended by the probation office.

Drew was initially charged with one count of felony conspiracy and three counts of felony unauthorized computer access, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, for allegedly violating MySpace’s terms of service by participating in the creation of a fake profile for a non-existent 16-year-old boy named “Josh Evans.”

The indictment charged that in September 2006 Drew conspired to create the Josh Evans account with her then 13-year-old daughter, Sarah, and a then-18-year-old employee and family friend named Ashley Grills, for the purpose of inflicting psychological harm on a 13-year-old neighbor named Megan Meier.

Continue Reading “Lori Drew to Be Sentenced Today” »

Lawyers to Judge: Don’t Make an Example of Lori Drew

lori_drew_500px

After the prosecution turned Lori Drew into a national symbol of cyberbullying, it’s “outrageous” to demand a harsh three-year prison term because she’s become that symbol, Drew’s defense attorneys told a federal judge Wednesday.

Prosecutors last week urged the court to sentence Drew to the maximum three years in prison for three misdemeanor convictions, instead of the one-year probation term recommended in an independent, court-ordered pre-sentence report. “A probationary sentence might embolden others to use the Internet to torment and exploit children,” the government argued. Drew “has become the public face of cyberbullying.”

But the entire point of prosecuting Lori Drew was to make her the “public face” of cyberbullying, wrote Drew lawyers H. Dean Steward and Orin Kerr, in a filing (.pdf) with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. It was the government that “ensured that the name ‘Lori Drew’ would be known to millions of Americans.” 

The defense attorneys are a bit off the mark in their assessment of what made Drew’s name known to millions. It wasn’t prosecutors who made Lori Drew famous, but the internet fury machine, which publicly outed her and demanded she be punished for her role in harassing, or encouraging the harassment of, Megan Meier, a 13-year-old Missouri girl who committed suicide in 2006. It was only after Drew became the focus of so much publicity that prosecutors in Los Angeles came up with a novel approach to prosecuting her.

Noting the government’s unprecedented use of an anti-hacking law to prosecute cyberbullying, the defense attorneys said the Drew verdict is not likely to survive appeal. That’s why legislators nationwide have rushed to enact new laws that are meant to specifically prohibit cyberbullying. Because these laws are only now being enacted, Drew should not be sentenced harshly for something that was not a crime at the time she was indicted.

“The rush to enact new statutes to prohibit cyberbullying, both at the state and federal level, reveals the absurdity of the government’s claim that a severe prison sentence in this case is needed to deter cyberbullying,” the defense attorneys write. “The idea that a Court must impose a severe sentence for conduct that occurred before legislatures actually prohibited cyberbullying is absurd.”

Continue Reading “Lawyers to Judge: Don’t Make an Example of Lori Drew” »

Prosecution: Dead Girl’s Parents Must Be Heard at Cyberbullying Sentencing

Internet Suicide

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles are urging a U.S. district judge to allow the parents of a deceased girl to speak at the sentencing hearing of Lori Drew on Monday.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krause, in writing to the court (.pdf), argued that Drew’s crime led directly to the death of 13-year-old Megan Meier in Missouri in 2006. Therefore her parents, Ron and Tina Meier, were unquestionably victims of her crime.

Krause argued that under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, a victim was defined as “a person directly and proximately harmed as the result of the commission of a Federal offense. . . .”

Therefore, he said, “depriving the Meier family of their right of allocution would be an error.”

Prosecutors were responding to a request Drew’s defense attorney made last week, asking the court to not allow family or friends of the dead teen to speak at the sentencing hearing. Defense attorney H. Dean Steward told the court that Meier’s family and friends were not victims, since Drew was not convicted of causing Meier’s death, merely of unauthorized access to a computer.

“MySpace was the victim under the fraud statute, and if MySpace wants to bring people into the hearing to speak, fine,” Steward told Threat Level last week. “But under the law, she is not a victim.”

Drew was convicted last year in the nation’s first cyberbullying-related case after she and two teens created a fake MySpace profile in the identity of a non-existent 16-year-old boy named “Josh Evans.”

Following a heated online exchange between Megan Meier and “Josh,” Meier hanged herself in her bedroom closet.

In the absence of a federal cyberbullying law, prosecutors in Los Angeles charged Drew with violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, an anti-hacking law. They charged that Drew broke the law when she violated MySpace’s terms of service in opening a fake profile page and using it to harass the teen. The case was tried in Los Angeles, where MySpace’s servers are based.

Drew was found guilty of three misdemeanor counts involving unauthorized access of a computer and faces a maximum three years in prison and $300,000 fine. In a pre-sentencing report submitted to the court, probation officers recommended that Drew get a year probation and $5,000 fine. Prosecutors are seeking the full three-year sentence, plus a year of probation and a $5,000 fine.

In arguing that Meier’s parents were direct victims of Drew’s actions, Assistant U.S. Attorney Krause pointed to the last message Megan Meier purportedly wrote to “Josh Evans ” as evidence of Drew’s culpability in her death.

The government’s star witness testified during the trial that Meier wrote Josh that he was the kind of guy over whom a girl could kill herself.

“As [Megan's] own words explain, her death was the direct result of defendant’s vindictive assault,” Krause said.

That message, however, was called into question during cross-examination when the government’s witness admitted that she had no memory of it until a week before the trial against Drew began. During interviews with police after Meier’s death, as well as with media more than a year after the incident, the witness never mentioned this message from Meier.

See Also:

Prosecutors Seek 3 Years in Prison for Lori Drew

Internet SuicideProsecutors who won misdemeanor convictions against Lori Drew last year have asked the judge to imprison her for the maximum sentence of three years. They rejected a recommendation from probation officers that Drew be given only probation and a $5,000 fine.

“Defendant has become the public face of cyberbullying,” prosecutors wrote in their filing to the court (.pdf). “A probationary sentence might embolden others to use the Internet to torment and exploit children.”

Drew was convicted last year on three misdemeanor counts of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in what is believed to be the nation’s first case related to cyberbullying. Drew was found guilty of violating MySpace’s terms-of-service agreement in helping to create a profile page that was used to harass 13-year-old Megan Meier, who killed herself.

Prosecutors had charged Drew with four felony counts, but jurors rejected these for the lesser misdemeanor convictions. They deadlocked on a fourth felony charge for conspiracy.

Each of the three misdemeanor convictions carries a possible maximum sentence of one year and $100,000 fine.

But in a pre-sentencing report sent to the court from probation officers, the officers (taking into account Drew’s lack of criminal history and other factors) calculated that Drew should be sentenced at level 4 of the sentencing guidelines, which refer to a 0-6 month sentence. They then recommended to the judge that Drew be given probation instead of jail time, along with the reduced $5,000 fine.

Details of the pre-sentencing report became public only because Drew’s defense attorney, H. Dean Steward, filed a response to the report, which wasn’t sealed. Steward wrote the court that he agreed with the probation recommendation, but felt the $5,000 fine was too harsh, and that Drew was not equipped to pay it.

Prosecutors on Wednesday disagreed with the probation officers’ recommendation and asked the court to sentence Drew to 12 months for each conviction, plus a $5,000 fine and one year of probation. They wrote that Drew’s role and use of minors in the scheme merited bumping her sentencing level up 10 notches. Drew was accused of creating the fake MySpace page with her daughter, who was 13 at the time, and an 18-year-old employee named Ashley Grills. Trial testimony revealed that after Meier committed suicide, Drew had contacted another 13-year-old girl who knew about the MySpace page, and told her to keep silent about it.

“[A] sentence above the guideline range is appropriate given that a primary objective of the offenses was to inflict emotional harm and the offenses both risked and actually caused substantial psychological harm and severe emotional trauma that resulted in [Megan Meier's] death,” prosecutors wrote.

The prosecutors say that the harsher sentence is also warranted because, even though the jury did not convict Drew of a felony violation “because it could not reach a unanimous verdict that defendant’s conduct was in furtherance of a tortious act,” legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit “have determined that a sentencing court may use acquitted conduct to determine a defendant’s appropriate sentence.”

In other words, even though the jury found Drew not guilty of a felony, the court can sentence her as if she were.

They cite the Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Watts: “acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.”

Drew is scheduled to be sentenced in Los Angeles on May 18th. U.S. District Judge George Wu, however, still has to rule on a motion for a direct acquittal. Drew’s defense attorney filed that motion after the prosecution rested its case last year on grounds that the prosecution failed to prove that Drew knew about the MySpace terms of service or that she intentionally violated it.

If Wu grants the defense motion, it would overturn the misdemeanors for lack of evidence, and result in a judgment of acquittal.

See Also:

No Ruling in Lori Drew Case Today; Sentencing Set for April

Drew_and_daughter_660_2

 

A hearing this morning to determine if a judge will throw out the Lori Drew verdict and acquit her has ended with no decision today, though a sentencing date has been set for April 30 and the judge indicated he would issue a written ruling before then, possibly within two weeks.

The 45-minute hearing in Los Angeles was convened to hash out questions and arguments before U.S. District Judge George Wu, who presided over the Drew trial last November.

Drew’s defense attorney H. Dean Steward had filed a motion for a directed acquittal after the prosecution rested its case, claiming that the government failed to prove that Drew had intentionally violated MySpace’s terms of service to gain unauthorized access to its computers.

Such motions are routine and are generally overruled by judges on the spot. But Wu declined to rule either before the jury reached its verdict or afterward.

Steward called it "exceptionally unusual" for a judge to take this long to rule on the motion.

This morning’s hearing covered old and new ground, with Wu quizzing both sides.

"He was clearly open-minded to both sides in trying to work through the issues," said Steward’s co-counsel, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor who joined the Drew defense pro bono. "He put both sides to a lot of good questions."

Steward was also pleased by the judge’s questions.

"He’s a thoughtful guy," he said. "We appreciate the thoughtfulness."

The new ground, according to Steward, revolved around determining what the jurors had intended by their verdict. They acquitted Drew of three felony counts of unauthorized computer access with the intent to commit harm but found her guilty of three misdemeanor counts of unauthorized computer access — minus the intent to commit harm. The jury deadlocked on a fourth conspiracy charge.

"[Wu] really focused a lot on what the jury instructions were and his interpretation of the verdict — being an unusual split between one count and the other three misdemeanors," Steward told Threat Level. "He was trying to interpret what the jury intended and what it meant legally — comparing what they did to the statutes."

Steward said one question raised by the jury’s verdict was whether it mean the jurors found Drew guilty of cyberbullying "or was it no finding at all," Steward said.

Wu indicated to the two sides that he might have a written ruling for them within two weeks.

Continue Reading “No Ruling in Lori Drew Case Today; Sentencing Set for April” »

Lori Drew Hearing Thursday to Decide Verdict’s Standing

Drew_and_daughter_660_2

 

A Los Angeles district judge is set to hold a hearing Thursday to rule on a motion to determine whether the verdict in the Lori Drew cyberbullying case should stand or be thrown out.

U.S. District Judge George Wu, who presided over the case, has delayed ruling on the motion since November when Drew’s attorney introduced it after the prosecution rested its case.

Defense attorney H. Dean Steward argued at the time that the case was based on Drew intentionally violating MySpace’s terms of service but said prosecutors "haven’t proven that portion of facts that would go to a knowing violation of a legal obligation." They provided no proof that Drew "ever read or had knowledge of the terms of service" therefore could not prove her intention to violate them.

Such motions are often routinely filed and just as routinely rejected by courts. But Judge Wu seemed sympathetic to the defense’s arguments at the time and declined to rule on the motion before the jury reached its verdict or even after Drew was found guilty of misdemeanor counts on three of the four charges against her.

After the trial concluded, Steward and co-counsel Orin Kerr filed papers on December 15 adding new arguments to the motion, saying Drew could not be guilty of unauthorized access to MySpace’s computers because gaining access to a computer under false pretenses was still considered "authorized access."

The attorneys cited cases in which courts have concluded that if someone gains permission or access to something through trickery or misrepresentation, it is still considered authorization and does not constitute nonconsent. If, for example, someone tricks another party into willingly handing over the keys to a car, the trickster could not be considered guilty of stealing the car.

"Because the owner handed over the keys, giving the defendant permission to use the car, the use of the car was authorized rather than unauthorized for purposes of criminal law," the lawyers wrote.

Continue Reading “Lori Drew Hearing Thursday to Decide Verdict’s Standing” »

Prosecutors Charge 7 People Under New Cyberbullying Law

Prosecutors in Missouri have been filing a flurry of charges under a new anti-cyberharassment statute that was passed as a result of the landmark Lori Drew/MySpace cyberbullying case.

The law went into effect in late August and was passed after 13-year-old Megan Meier hanged herself in Missouri in 2006 following online harassment through a MySpace account.

When a press report in 2007 revealed the role that 47-year-old Lori Drew played in Meier’s harassment, local authorities felt pressured to charge Drew with a crime, but could find no law under which to prosecute her. So Missouri lawmakers drafted legislation to outlaw future threats or harassing communication that causes emotional distress.

Under the law, perpetrators can be charged with a misdemeanor or felony.

In the three months since the law took effect, Missouri authorities have wasted little time in bringing charges against seven people, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

  • A 21-year-old woman named Nicole Williams was charged for allegedly sending harassing text messages to a 16-year-old girl and allowing others to use her cellphone to leave vulgar voicemail messages for the victim threatening her with rape, among other things. Williams allegedly targeted the teen over a jealous dispute involving a boy, according to the Post-Dispatch.
  • Two St. Louis men were charged separately with sending harassing text messages to their ex-girlfriends.
  • A man protesting the development of a proposed resort was charged with sending a threatening e-mail to city hall staff.
  • A 28-year-old woman was accused of sending harassing text messages to her ex-husband’s girlfriend.
  • A 19-year-old man was charged with sending 17 threatening text messages to his mother’s husband.
  • A 17-year-old involved with a classmate in a dispute over a girl is accused of sending the classmate death threats via text messages.

Nicole Williams’ attorney says the law was poorly written and hastily passed in an effort to appease the public’s anger over Drew’s involvement in Meier’s death.

Megan Meier was lured into an online MySpace relationship by a 16-year-old boy named "Josh Evans" who rejected her a month later, telling Meier the world would be better place without her. Authorities later learned that Drew, along with her 13-year-old daughter and an 18-year-old family friend and employee, created the fake "Josh Evans" MySpace account to lure Meier into a relationship and determine if Meier was spreading rumors about Drew’s daughter.

Meier, who had a history of depression and emotional instability, hanged herself in her bedroom after being attacked by "Josh."

After Missouri authorities concluded they could not charge Drew with any crime, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles decided to use a federal anti-hacking statute, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, to charge Drew with three felony counts of unauthorized access to MySpace’s computers and one felony conspiracy count. Drew was acquitted of the three felony counts for unauthorized access but was convicted on three lesser misdemeanor charges of unauthorized access. A jury deadlocked on the fourth charge of conspiracy.

Prosecutors have been criticized for using the CFAA to prosecute Drew. The case is likely to be appealed, at which point experts expect the verdict to be overturned.

At least 18 states currently have laws addressing cyberbullying and harassment.

 

See also: