Judge Hacks Prosecution To Pieces In Xbox 360 Modding Trial

The Xbox 360 criminal hacking trial began in Los Angeles with a bang. "I really don't understand what we're doing here," said US District Judge Philip Gutierrez.

According to Wired blog Threat Level, the judge's open court "tirade" was directed at prosecutors and lasted 30 minutes.

The judge was upset about a whole host of issues, including the fact that two witnesses for the prosecution might have broken the law. Entertainment Software Association investigation Tony Rosario could have broken California privacy law when he videotaped defendant Matthew Crippen modding his console at him home, and Microsoft security employee Ken McGrail says he also modded consoles while in college.

The prosecution, led by Allen Chiu, did not want this information shared with the jury, but Gutierrez said, "I think it is relevant and the jury is going to hear about it - both crimes."

Matthew Crippen is facing three years in prison if convicted of servicing Xbox 360 consoles and installing mod chips on them, offenses which violate the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Crippen, who is a student at California State University, was arrested after an investigation from the Electronic Software Association.

For the rest of the tirade, Gutierrez let the prosecution have it over issue of not need to prove that Crippen "willfully" broke the law and fair use. Chiu ended up apologising after the judge finished, and the trial was put on hold.

Nominated by President George W. Bush, Gutierrez joined the US District Court for the Central District of California in 2007. Back in 2008, Gutierrez extended a restraining order against former Britney Spears manager Sam Lufti.

Xbox-Modding Judge Berates Prosecution, Puts Trial on Hold [Wired.com][Pic]


    “I really don’t understand what we’re doing here,”

    Well you see judge, a law was broken, and its your job to either convict or aquit. Its simple, huh? It sounds like the judge is an idiot to me... the prosecutors just doing his job.

      I think the judge was referring to, perhaps, his time being better spent, trialing people who commit crimes that have victims, and who are investigated lawfully.

      Dismissing such a thing as proving intent is rather presumptuous, even arrogant. The judge was clearly unimpressed as he has every right to be.

      Also your statement "a law was broken" is assuming the accused it already guilty, you must be rather familiar with American law after all.

      Ummmm, he said that because the case should have never gone to trial.

      TheRev, do you actually read the entire article before you post a comment, or are you just trying to be the loudest retard on the 'net?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now