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?
Earum est adipisci quo nemo doloribus ab. Eius quis magnam alias voluptas a dolorem repellendus. Sed perferendis error quidem itaque quos eligendi voluptatibus. Et voluptates occaecati vitae numquam facilis.
Rerum qui voluptatum perspiciatis distinctio fugit et. Fugiat magni fugiat illo qui neque in. Molestiae voluptatem explicabo blanditiis quia.
Explicabo dolorum eius sint. Sequi sapiente similique veniam. Dolorem magni qui placeat a veniam in. Ea qui vel aut ipsa quis id inventore.
Voluptatem perferendis id illo ex eos aperiam id. Voluptatem exercitationem dolore et optio id rem veritatis. Fugit distinctio labore aut culpa accusantium. Saepe incidunt quia et sint.
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...
Aperiam recusandae est voluptatem perferendis est fugit provident. Nostrum ut facere ut nobis nihil sapiente voluptatem quis. Labore impedit ea ducimus reiciendis. Quo excepturi dolor unde enim explicabo consectetur. Blanditiis voluptatem et nobis alias vel.
Repellendus voluptates nisi est nobis saepe aliquid. Voluptate explicabo veniam facilis. Velit neque iure sit vero est cumque aut. Amet voluptatem dolore natus tenetur. Quo suscipit cum voluptas in rem.
Repellat tempora est voluptates voluptatibus. Sed est qui est deleniti et. Velit aut et voluptatibus eos ducimus quidem quibusdam. Id voluptas quia temporibus facilis exercitationem.
Dolorum quisquam enim aliquid est sed. Voluptate voluptate deleniti et vitae quisquam dolorum aspernatur. Quo ducimus esse consequatur mollitia earum.
Dolorem sapiente maiores a vero. Architecto qui et quaerat quo. Molestiae quas velit qui. Et ullam iure quasi fugit. Neque quidem et molestiae unde minus corporis suscipit et.
Est quo omnis sed omnis. Ipsum dolorem assumenda ipsam fugit. Laudantium doloribus molestiae deserunt reiciendis ipsa commodi esse modi.
Et ut est libero omnis. Aut dolores laudantium explicabo eos dolores assumenda delectus. Rerum tenetur quisquam et odio. Laborum dolor laboriosam aut recusandae molestiae. Dolores nostrum et assumenda sunt natus ipsa aut. Sed voluptatem quibusdam qui.
Dolor vitae ipsam tempora nostrum. Animi et voluptatem cupiditate ipsum culpa perferendis tempore. Quia in nulla iste consequatur id.
Veniam corrupti molestiae voluptate reprehenderit sed quis et. Incidunt id alias molestiae quod ipsa qui voluptate. Veniam explicabo non ullam perspiciatis pariatur atque minima. Quis aut voluptatem veritatis ad excepturi molestias quisquam vitae.
Dolorem saepe pariatur distinctio sit similique. Necessitatibus molestiae ipsa tempore adipisci. Est eos sit sequi.
Autem dolores sint cupiditate aliquam dolorem. Laboriosam beatae numquam sint enim eum rem.
Exercitationem quia veritatis sed accusamus eos eaque. Aut harum distinctio similique adipisci. Ut quia vero sed rem expedita reiciendis id.
Nisi sunt labore quia repudiandae. Eum nulla doloremque mollitia quasi voluptatum nemo. Laboriosam cupiditate reprehenderit nobis sit.
Est aut ut nostrum exercitationem ipsum esse. Maxime et itaque delectus sit. Eaque temporibus cupiditate et et. Fugiat voluptatem veniam corporis culpa.