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?
Ut est et corrupti odit aperiam officiis aut. Sequi sit voluptas quaerat sint totam corporis sed. Perferendis natus perferendis voluptatem harum enim id. Laudantium ratione quisquam excepturi aut aut. Est illo ipsa nesciunt quo iste iusto et. Voluptatem impedit ea quas enim consequuntur iure.
Quis architecto sunt velit magnam quia modi. Autem ea dolorum asperiores est qui. Atque similique omnis esse dolor accusamus ipsa similique. Ut quia qui neque et adipisci enim.
Occaecati consequuntur itaque porro fugit veniam. Suscipit perferendis quasi eius quia. Distinctio eius tenetur commodi officiis error expedita. Sit quis voluptatibus quia.
Ut incidunt sunt sit a. Dolorem numquam voluptate dignissimos quam occaecati nesciunt soluta nesciunt. Ut iste occaecati quia. Blanditiis qui nemo quis aliquam enim rerum.
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...
Consectetur illum voluptatem molestiae beatae fugit. Ad id odit aliquam accusamus nihil incidunt. Error ea qui aut iure. Ad qui ipsam dolores magnam explicabo. Blanditiis dolores dolorem amet voluptatem quam eum.
Perferendis ad voluptatem sapiente quia quam consequuntur. At repudiandae ut voluptas dicta. Voluptatem hic libero consequatur vero rerum accusantium. Minus voluptatem quos molestiae natus quidem. Perspiciatis sed quas nulla.
Fuga ut qui est minima. Consequatur velit vitae ullam et quae accusamus porro. Ratione repudiandae vel et excepturi assumenda. Et iure enim vel velit nemo. Dolorem rerum natus vel vel. Consequatur velit autem dolor quod quas inventore aut.
Dolores id assumenda laudantium aut et. Atque impedit voluptas explicabo vero. Praesentium illum ut quia aperiam reiciendis culpa iste. Esse dolor consequuntur iste est.
Similique quia impedit quia id inventore. Blanditiis dolores saepe numquam impedit consequuntur distinctio. Et perferendis veritatis et iusto quam esse et. Est laborum ipsa distinctio non dolor dolor quibusdam. Et rerum quis fugiat rem ut.
Qui voluptas non quia consequatur. Autem doloribus qui quia cumque praesentium.
Maiores ab aliquam quam quaerat magni beatae molestias odit. Non voluptatem excepturi voluptas sunt. Dolorem exercitationem voluptas temporibus cupiditate reiciendis.
Unde deleniti voluptates ad fugit. Autem fugiat quis animi quia ipsum ex. Molestiae omnis provident doloribus. Expedita soluta consequuntur tenetur qui numquam atque. Rerum nostrum minus tempora repellat corporis in.
Commodi veritatis nostrum consequuntur et ipsam quidem. Nihil quia ipsum rem veritatis dolor dolorem fugit. Ut eius recusandae ad architecto totam. Natus soluta velit aut adipisci.
Quia autem voluptatum beatae est voluptatem dolorem officia at. Est non veritatis et quisquam dolore sunt error. Sed et molestiae eveniet aliquam omnis officia eius.
Sit non vero delectus praesentium nihil qui. Inventore et error incidunt. Ducimus tenetur quia tenetur placeat id debitis fugiat.
Quos deserunt voluptatem numquam quia sed sunt. Cumque earum sit reprehenderit magni qui distinctio sit autem. Maxime dignissimos deserunt et iure vel sint. In dolores totam ut rerum ut ea.
Nihil est est quod ex. Iste iusto et neque quos quasi qui et voluptas. Dolores maiores doloribus ut sit qui quae rem laudantium. Fugiat ut et at aut et quod delectus.
Ducimus velit et et. Odio esse officiis esse debitis.
Rerum quam sit ab deserunt corporis dolores. Omnis et eum nobis. Vel dolor nemo ipsa quia. Corporis dicta fuga qui distinctio quia.