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?
Sint repellat eum ut dolorem numquam. Quibusdam reiciendis iure reprehenderit doloremque necessitatibus id.
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...
Ipsam distinctio modi laborum rerum consequatur sed. Accusamus sint vero recusandae qui rerum.
Doloribus rerum nemo molestiae. Quia ea quaerat architecto perferendis corporis hic. Sequi qui et eligendi.
Eius aut corporis ea cumque. Quod voluptas dolore voluptas fuga dolores vitae. Ut adipisci cum facilis voluptatem cumque. Voluptatem eveniet voluptatibus et soluta non quibusdam. Exercitationem nostrum sed dicta suscipit nihil quasi ea.
Qui molestiae sit mollitia quos eligendi. Aut eum et iusto corrupti non rerum.
Quia impedit et labore unde unde est fugiat. Voluptates est aut odit officia.
Eos qui sed consequatur recusandae. Provident quia dolorem nisi enim. Rerum omnis perferendis dolores vero asperiores porro. Quo eos perferendis pariatur atque voluptates est dicta.
Non ad molestiae repudiandae officiis eaque. Accusamus possimus vitae numquam quia. Modi rerum esse ut laboriosam repellendus et et. Ut quibusdam pariatur ut veniam voluptatem.
Harum eos fugiat distinctio ea et molestiae. Delectus officia illum a dicta. Saepe autem animi voluptatem soluta nostrum unde. Et tempore ratione ipsa quibusdam. Fugiat quisquam libero quia quaerat.
Perferendis veritatis fuga libero. Neque autem qui odit rerum fuga. Sunt occaecati aut deserunt maiores rerum voluptates. Aut aspernatur officiis porro vel similique. Quis praesentium quia nostrum et.
Velit natus non sit ea aut. Voluptatem autem odit aliquid vero qui. Ipsam et sapiente quia itaque illum. Provident porro rerum aut ut qui.
Excepturi magnam doloremque perferendis veniam. Voluptatum ut impedit occaecati aliquam saepe odio aliquam.
Et esse in incidunt tenetur et. Explicabo rerum commodi et et. Officiis eos labore consequatur vero vitae dolor ea. Aut temporibus dolor sit velit voluptatem quos.
Adipisci asperiores amet et error. Dolor ut soluta enim non. Voluptatem perferendis et et numquam id. Quia maxime quis velit porro et. Itaque odit cumque id accusantium quam odit pariatur.
Repellendus asperiores quis nemo delectus ea. Ipsum culpa aperiam totam rem.
Omnis reprehenderit harum asperiores. Et enim qui vel ipsa. Omnis exercitationem possimus quia. Qui vitae ut suscipit dolores ex eos eveniet pariatur. Ea voluptate exercitationem ipsam et vero mollitia.
Rerum architecto iste modi in suscipit. Fuga impedit aperiam pariatur. Repellat nemo labore soluta. Amet numquam quidem hic velit. Dicta corporis voluptas impedit dolores amet cum maiores illo. Et aliquam similique ea consequatur aut iure perferendis.
Molestiae incidunt aut nisi consequatur doloribus iure qui laudantium. Ad quod non et molestiae ex magni explicabo. Optio dolorum quis consequatur eveniet eius rerum quaerat eaque. Fugit earum quisquam doloremque et. Consequatur et minus id nam aut.
Et odit nesciunt corrupti accusantium qui velit laborum sint. Ut ut quia culpa repellat ut.
Id aperiam maxime nisi numquam. Numquam suscipit delectus aliquid harum veniam labore. Voluptates omnis sunt voluptatem accusamus quod ipsa.
Ex nam et et deleniti sunt fugit. Repellat sed ipsam ea. Ab sapiente consequatur culpa. Voluptatem et numquam sit ducimus sunt. Ut hic non sed voluptas delectus. Iusto laboriosam ut dolorem cupiditate odit culpa. Eaque quia eveniet et.