Re: Future Justice
"But there is evidence."
Certainly there is. And they have that evidence. So build your case on that. (Which they did.)
Let us completely ignore whether the defendant knows the password or not. In fact, let us assume that he does know it and is indeed refusing to hand over the information, as the court 'found'.
THIS IS INFORMATION IN HIS HEAD. His thoughts; his secrets; his ideas.
The government wants to force the accused to speak for the express purpose of using those words as evidence against him. They are saying he should be forced to testify against himself. The fact that the thoughts they want him to give voice to represent passwords is irrelevant - it is information he has in his brain that the government wants to force him provide so it can incriminate him.
The fact that they have evidence of some crimes does not allow them to force the defendant to testify against himself to prove other crimes or a greater extent of criminality.
Say you had someone charged with stealing a car and had evidence sufficient to secure that conviction but the government (as the prosecutor) strongly believed that this same person was responsible for several other thefts occurring around the same time. The defendant does not have to provide testimony that puts him at those additional crime scenes - he can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to refuse to provide that information.
The fact that there is evidence he committed one crime does not mean the Fifth Amendment no longer applies because it applies to every charge - every crime. This is so you can't find someone guilty and then laden him/her up with bunches of other crimes.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
