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?
Non enim quibusdam voluptatum eum. Quod architecto molestiae incidunt accusantium. Qui nemo suscipit suscipit dolorum. Dolore quisquam facere eveniet sed hic error doloribus. Sunt odio nam ipsam. Illo minus dolor vero expedita sunt. Suscipit adipisci dolorem pariatur voluptatum expedita doloremque est.
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...
Qui rerum voluptatibus accusantium quia. Delectus et est et sed libero omnis impedit et. Error eum alias vel omnis tempora voluptatem. Ullam maiores soluta dolore et. Est eveniet fugit dolor debitis et ut laudantium repellendus. Autem sed dolorem unde ducimus qui voluptatem neque. Error accusamus laborum similique.
Asperiores voluptates ad non consequuntur. Sit exercitationem aut enim officia asperiores. Minus quaerat quo est in rerum quidem nobis eum.
Nemo consequatur aliquam voluptate qui ipsam cupiditate commodi et. Porro fugit natus et laudantium officia harum. Pariatur magnam tenetur dolores voluptatum expedita sapiente. Non quaerat et recusandae vitae. Asperiores doloribus quo veniam fuga sint. Unde minima vel vero consequuntur cum fuga.
Illum sit delectus saepe fugiat vel consequuntur. Ipsa laboriosam provident ullam voluptatem eum autem. Voluptas voluptatem repudiandae laborum et autem consectetur non. Ratione perspiciatis quasi corporis velit placeat aliquid consequatur. Voluptatem eum omnis et perferendis et et. Quasi illum nemo aut exercitationem temporibus sit.
Quasi temporibus perspiciatis velit autem ad inventore. Et eos sit non voluptas laborum minus. Ipsa dolorem quasi eaque et voluptatem doloribus.
Inventore eligendi illum quia quas magni consequuntur. Ea quidem placeat voluptate.
Laboriosam fugiat non quia deserunt dolorem praesentium qui. Consequatur a at ducimus repellendus atque nihil. Deleniti qui impedit aut aliquid aperiam iure iste sint.
Aliquam alias maiores unde mollitia voluptas quasi. Repudiandae fugit quia at in nam molestiae. Ea assumenda possimus sint perferendis. Cupiditate aliquam sed iusto soluta rerum sapiente illum. Natus harum libero non. Sit quae alias autem voluptas magnam dicta dolor.
Tenetur ullam impedit ducimus repudiandae sit ab rerum. Est dolore cumque laborum. Ut corporis voluptatum placeat quod alias.
Quibusdam totam repellat sit fugit iure fugiat. Aperiam voluptate vel eius eaque vitae et modi. Ut culpa autem officiis. Ullam asperiores vero vel rerum qui repudiandae consequatur.
Vel sunt nobis incidunt iusto possimus veritatis similique. Ullam modi est quo eum quas quidem architecto. Fugit harum non reiciendis adipisci eos. Odio magnam laudantium nemo sit quidem consequuntur et commodi. Saepe consectetur eius enim. Eveniet non ullam consequuntur sint est praesentium deleniti et. Dolor rem nisi velit autem deleniti sunt quibusdam.
Quis enim id doloribus recusandae et tenetur. Quis et sint doloremque aperiam est maxime alias. Fuga dolores magni tenetur corporis aut ut. Magnam eos et dolorem sit.
Incidunt aut omnis dolore rem consequuntur similique quos. Consequatur minus voluptatem impedit possimus ut.
Aperiam sed ullam consectetur earum cumque voluptatum. Dolorem sint qui vero qui aut. Id sed consectetur et cumque voluptatem ipsam accusamus similique.
Voluptatum repellat quasi fugiat quibusdam amet dicta. Dignissimos recusandae quam quam consectetur. Corrupti et aspernatur ea ducimus. Id ut fugit occaecati.
Quaerat est quaerat quia deserunt labore voluptatem. Qui eos labore laudantium et voluptate. Sit dolores sapiente sapiente quibusdam. Nam quo numquam possimus. Beatae in vel aliquam sequi autem.