zlacker

> I suspect they will also pursue a criminal or civil case on the basis of harassment of journalists doing protected work based on a false identity theft assertion to justify avoiding the legal requirement to issue a subpoena rather than a warrant. The co-owners death won’t be a material fact in that sort of case but I’m sure would be mentioned to sharpen the case.

The death would absolutely be relevant in a criminal case (e.g., under the applicable federal statute matching the described conspiracy against protected conduct, it changes the maximum penalty from ten years to death or life in prison), in a civil case, it may also be relevant, as it would likely be among the harms forming the basis for damages. (It may even be the basis of the tort, e.g., if pursued as wrongful death, where the part you describe is the “wrongful” part.)

>>dragon+(OP)
Fair enough - I wasn’t thinking about in a sentencing context but in a materiality in the establishment of a crime, as the crime would have to somehow encompass the death which seems hard to establish without some direct action.