From Slater at the WSJ Law Blog, the case of Lori Drew has taken a fascinating twist. The case, scheduled to go to trial on October 7 (how do they get to trial so quickly out in California?), now has new issues to develop. Following H. Dean Steward’s motions to dismiss and the government’s response, U.S. District Court Judge George Wu suggested that the case was going forward, though he had some reservations worthy of greater thought.
At the September 23rd court appearance, thought to be just another pre-trial conference, Judge Wu brought up some issues of his own, requesting that the parties brief the issues:
- What terms of service matter? Are all violations of the Myspace terms of service tantamount to the “unauthorized access” required by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? If not, who decides which violations are relevant? MySpace? A jury? Or the court?
Where’s the theft? According to Steward, Judge Wu says he’s found some support for the idea that the object of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is to prohibit theft of information. So Judge Wu wants to know what, exactly, Lori Drew stole. According to Steward, AUSA Krause likened Drew’s alleged unauthorized access to a trespass on land. “That’s all well and good,” Steward told the Law Blog, “but then show me in indictment where you allege that Lori Drew stole information.”
Back to Con law 101: In what Steward says was a surprise to him, Judge Wu wanted to know where “the interstate connection” was, given that the alleged acts occurred in Missouri. The government brought the case in California because MySpace is based in Beverly Hills.
Great questions for the defense, not to mention the rest of the civilized world. Despite the feelings against Lori Drew for what she did to Megan Meier, this prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Judge Wu, from the gist of his issues, appears to have a firm sense that the government’s attempt to manipulate the law to cover Lori Drew’s conduct stretches it beyond breaking. Now, we wait to find out what Judge Wu does about it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I am not an attorney. But I am wondering how they resolved the jurisdiction issues. I have been studying cyber jurisdiction and it seems pretty hard to define at the moment.
This one will be less well-defined than others, as it’s “cyber” involvement is mere pretense to cover for the lack of any local law covering the conduct. This is the judges question as to “what was stolen,” since if nothing was stolen in California, and all acts occurred in elsewhere, than why the heck is the case in CA?
As Dean Steward said, we’ve become so conditioned to believe that any time a wire is involved, it’s federal jurisdiction that it never dawns on anyone that it might not be. That Judge Wu has even considered the idea is quite amazing.
Redux: Following Up on Drew, Davis and Jesse James Hollywood
Sure, I post about plenty of stuff when it’s in my face, but what comes of it later?
Redux: Following Up on Drew, Davis and Jesse James Hollywood
Sure, I post about plenty of stuff when it’s in my face, but what comes of it later?