The Economics of Blind Justice
When I opened Tuesday’s (June 19th) Journal, I was struck by an interesting dichotomy between two articles. The front page profiled a picture of “The Rocket”, front and center, (Clemens Acquitted in Perjury Case) and his perjury trial victory. Flipping ahead a few pages (well actually clicking – I find reading a physical newspaper on the subway during rush hour traffic virtually impossible) to the popular ‘Money and Investing’ section, I came across an article describing the guilty verdict that had been passed in the Rajat Gupta insider trading case. (Rajat Gupta - Guilty)
Save for what mass media told me, I cannot speak eruditely or with certainty to the validity of the two jury’s decisions. However, I am perfectly capable of formulating an opinion based on the information conveyed. Presented below is an overly simplified and perhaps bias tinged (although I tried to avoid this) synopsis of the two cases:
- At stake in both cases: A man’s freedom
- Defendant 1: Rajat Gupta; an orphan from India, who attended Harvard on scholarship and rose to be head of Mckinsey and Co. Accused of passing insider information gleaned from his position as a director on Goldman’s board, to head of Galleon Group, Raj Rajaratnam(convicted last year)
- Defendant 2: Roger Clemens; one of MLB’s most successful and dominant pitchers, with over 350 wins and career ERA of 3.12. He also won 7 Cy Young awards and was an 11 time MVP. Identified by former trainer Brian McNamee as being on the Mitchell Report for taking performance-enhancing steroids. Indicted by the DOJ on several charges, including perjury and obstruction of justice.
- Quality of Evidence submitted in both cases (now here is where personal opinion and bias may warrant a difference in opinion): Circumstantial at best. According to the WSJ on the Gupta Case
trading in Wall Street's history, involving a particularly prominent defendant—were challenging for jurors because the government's case was built almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.
And on the Clemens trial, The deliberations—in one of the most important cases on insiderMarc Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor who once handled steroids cases, said he wasn't surprised by the outcome, given the prosecutors' struggles with their chief witnesses' credibility. "I think the government's case had a lot of proof problems […]."
- The Verdicts: Gupta was convicted on three counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy. Clemens was acquitted on all charges of lying to Congress.
Now comes the time to play devil’s advocate (pun somewhat intended I suppose). On the face of it, two jurys comprised of the defendants peers (jury selection is entirely different can worms, best discussed in a separate forum) had relatively circumstantial evidence to decide the fates of two wealthy, high profile men in cases of fraud and perjury. For arguments sake, let us suppose they were both guilty. In reference to the Clemens case (but wholly applicable to either situation), Hall of Famer Goose Gossage captures the sentiment perfectly -
. So if justice is blind and one is innocent until proven guilty – how can two similar cases, yield such dramatically different results? O.J Simpson, did you believe he didn’t kill those two people?
I don’t want to point to the vilification and ostracism of Wall Street and it’s more powerful, wealthier titans. I’m sure that there is strong negative sentiment towards the 1% (especially those who have made their money on the street). I don’t want to insinuate that the adoration with which the masses view celebrity athletes (who often make an equally ungodly amount of money) and put them on a pedestal, often allows them greater leeway in the eyes of the law. While these are all questions a rational, curious individual might ask or assert – I’m trying to take as neutral a stance on the subject. I want to turn it over to all the monkey’s out there: the one’s who have made it and will one day be as baller as Rajat Gupta (monetarily anyway), the one’s struggling to make ends meet at school (with aspirations of making it) and the one’s who’ve already run their race and are wiser for it – everyone, the entire spectrum: what happened? Do you think there is credence to the argument that a significant bias may have been the cause of such diametrically opposite outcomes in what seem like similar situations(to me anyway)? Or on the flip-side, is Wall Street just so used to being portrayed as the villain that me/we/whoever can’t see the outcome of two uncorrelated cases in anything but a prejudiced light? Just curious?
Cum nihil consequatur eius deleniti numquam ut illum. Necessitatibus porro et alias reiciendis. Deserunt itaque quidem provident ipsum quos est ea voluptas. Consequatur enim repellendus iste voluptate. Dolore qui nostrum dolor aut eligendi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Voluptas fugiat harum eum aperiam et. Tenetur vero est eius dignissimos culpa rem sunt perferendis. Sequi sint et aut sapiente. Vel aut soluta maiores aut quam nostrum.
Voluptas est mollitia dolore sunt quos corrupti. Ea dicta nesciunt ab reiciendis voluptas mollitia eos. Tenetur omnis fugiat tempora voluptatem repellat eos.
Eos repellendus aliquam aut. Non vitae possimus laborum eos expedita laboriosam voluptates. Repellat blanditiis saepe nihil autem. Et consequatur natus recusandae aut officiis impedit dignissimos. Occaecati soluta dolorum aspernatur in sed laborum. Molestiae iure officiis voluptatem eveniet molestias perspiciatis.
Sint quis dolor aut est. Quidem et inventore inventore alias.
Aut quis quos eveniet nisi nulla a molestiae. Est maxime cupiditate non voluptatum temporibus sunt odit. Omnis illum rerum error porro. Exercitationem omnis reiciendis optio autem porro qui. Dolorem aut est aliquam repellendus.
Delectus id est rerum alias distinctio ut. Consequatur deleniti maxime quo laboriosam. Nam sed cum voluptatem sed. Molestias voluptatum consequatur consectetur sapiente ex et vero id.
Doloribus magni quidem sapiente ad. Molestiae quo natus iusto consequatur amet consequatur. Qui maxime architecto consequatur omnis saepe quam cumque id.
Sunt architecto quo consectetur aut ut. Beatae nulla accusantium doloremque et non. Vel architecto velit praesentium deserunt quo. Eligendi similique ea adipisci.
Eligendi excepturi veniam fugiat. Modi sunt dignissimos iusto maiores quia accusamus explicabo officia. Et cumque accusantium temporibus et velit nemo.
Corporis autem fuga perspiciatis voluptatem. Est excepturi ipsam dicta sunt aut rem voluptatem ipsam. Vitae temporibus iste nostrum atque esse. Aut voluptatem ex perspiciatis aut aut. Qui eos odio enim saepe aut.
Vero ex quo repudiandae consequatur et. Voluptates suscipit ut odit. Ratione modi itaque ipsam labore cumque. Ratione autem quis voluptatem quidem laboriosam fugiat.
Totam at quia optio eligendi ut qui. Fuga facilis doloribus est quis dolorum. Et placeat occaecati accusamus iste et assumenda. Consequuntur consequatur maiores fuga delectus adipisci. Voluptatum qui maiores natus at et inventore dolorem. Quod et cumque magnam fugit consequatur et repellat.
Omnis tenetur non architecto laudantium nesciunt. Ut illo sit beatae at earum sequi excepturi.
Animi sit occaecati aliquid minima. Sapiente sed tempora reiciendis qui dolores sunt. Ipsa molestias cum commodi ex nemo odio voluptas. Rerum recusandae molestiae quidem ea omnis. Minus dolorem nihil quae corporis.
Aspernatur qui ipsum eos. Excepturi autem deleniti delectus fugit molestiae voluptatum. Dolor cumque perferendis sit ipsam numquam earum consequuntur.
Voluptate dolorum omnis expedita facilis. Quae id fugiat eos ut. Velit minus dolor mollitia voluptatum doloribus quibusdam. Id sint quia aliquid provident iste.
Natus illum fugit cumque iste corporis. Ea nisi ut est et non fuga. Perferendis maxime maxime qui possimus unde. Voluptatum autem voluptatem officia libero. Maiores nostrum officia ipsa dolor.
Et voluptatem ipsa consectetur dolor velit nulla. Ipsum sit a rem corporis laboriosam minima. Asperiores aut quod repudiandae voluptatum.