What if she actually doesn't know the password? For example if it isn't her laptop or the password was written down and lost or it is an old encrypted volume which she doesn't use anymore, etc.
This is one of the reasons that I find the Fifth Amendment to be important. Without it, the DOJ could simply ask any murder suspect to reveal where they stashed the body and murder weapon, charging them with obstruction of justice or contempt of court if they didn't answer. This, of course, would be a serious problem if the accused didn't actually commit the crime.
Federal investigators and prosecutors aren't dumb. For all of those scenarios that you mentioned, it would be easy to tell whether or not this was a laptop that she used frequently.
Where did she get it from? (or from whom? - she should be able to say.) In what condition was the laptop found, on her desk? opened? screen saver on? or powered down? in a pile, covered in dust? any fingerprints or other signs of use? Any removable media present? They can look in her office for passwords written down. They can check her mobile devices for password managers and compel her to unlock those.
Understand for the case to even proceed to indictment (which happened last year), they have done all of this work to make sure that their case is pretty solid. There are pretrial hearings, and depositions and other things which lawyers do to answer all these questions about whether they can prove that she really should be able to provide the password.
None of those are reasonable or reliable indications that he/she is lying about having forgotten a password. There are fingerprints or signs of use? What if the defendant has been actively trying to remember the password, or has just done something as simple as moved the laptop's location to get it out of the way? Removable media present? What if it was left in there from when they did have use of the password and didn't have use for the media otherwise? And even if the computer is found on their desk, with the screensaver on, the defendant could have just forgotten the password, it happens and is expected especially if they tended to just barely remember the password before and just happened to forget it at that time.
The fact is, no matter how sure the prosecution is of the accused's guilt and the hard drive's content, the accused can still just have forgotten the password. That's it, just forgotten the password. and the accused could be innocent of the crime, and now facing inescapable prison time, all because they wanted to keep their personal financial documents safe and have an unreliable memory. That is not a reasonable way to carry about justice.
>None of those are reasonable or reliable indications that he/she is lying about having forgotten a password.
I agree fully, forgetting passwords happens. My AD account at work has a short, random password with a forgiving lifespan. Even though I have to enter it a few dozen times a day, following the long weekend I had for the 4th it took me 5 minutes of sitting at my desk before I remembered enough to make a few guesses at it.
If I went more than a week or so without opening my encrypted partition, the password is long, complicated and changed frequently enough that I will most likely forget it. I currently only know it by muscle memory.
Add to that that at least my muscle memory is especially flaky when I try hard to remember what I'm actually supposed to type and/or I'm otherwise under stress/nervous. Usually just not thinking about the password for 5 minutes works, potentially facing 10 years in prison is certainly not gonna help.
> Federal investigators and prosecutors aren't dumb. For all of those scenarios that you mentioned, it would be easy to tell whether or not this was a laptop that she used frequently.
Why doesn't the prosecutor ask banks and other parties for the records necessary to prove the accused is guilty? This is a mortgage fraud case right? Why can't they look at emails, contracts, bank records, and phone records that 3rd parties must have?
Since you can't defraud yourself, there has to be some other party involved who can turn over evidence against you.
If the prosecutor is so smart, why demand that the defendant incriminate himself? That is how the system in France works. Perhaps this prosecutor should move there.
What if she actually doesn't know the password? For example if it isn't her laptop or the password was written down and lost or it is an old encrypted volume which she doesn't use anymore, etc.