Has anyone tried one of these cases yet? I'm curious as to how you handled the large number of witnesses on proving the lack of consent issue or if you found some way around that problem. It seems like a difficult undertaking to round up this many victims and an unwieldy parade of people to put on the witness stand.

Maybe it is ok to infer the rest were without consent after you prove some were. But, there is still the issue of proving it was real identifying info (or that of a deceased person). I just indicted one for 5, but less than 10 items and I thought it was going to a headache. You are just too ambitious!

Why not call every single witness?

How do you think the jury will react when they see all 2083208 people the defendant has harmed? Each one has a story of what a pain it is to change credit card numbers or switch bank accounts, or anything else ID theft victims have to go through.

So what if it takes all day? Well then your jury will know who to blame.

There is no doubt that finding all of them and organizing transportation to court would be a tremendous undertaking, but Phillip is exactly right about what an effect it would have with a jury. I was just wondering if anyone knew of any kind of shortcut that I was overlooking. I'm skeptical about the approach of proving some and inferring the rest. If we have to take that approach, maybe I can use some kind of business records from the credit card companies?

You could ask for a stipulation from the defense.

I am just trying to imagine a voir dire where you ask the venire "who knows ..." and go through the names of each victim (50+) - could take a couple of hours just to go through that list!

Art. 38.39 should be kept in mind. I am not sure what it means in this situation, but it would appear to be very helpful.