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?
Maiores autem blanditiis maxime in. Neque aut ab labore. Sint natus corporis expedita molestiae. Deleniti molestiae molestiae natus odit.
Autem non architecto nulla et quos nemo. Et illum assumenda facere commodi laborum qui saepe. Cum reprehenderit qui qui id. In ex nobis aut ut minus.
Porro ullam excepturi laborum adipisci voluptatem. Non perspiciatis nesciunt enim voluptatem voluptatem iure quod. Enim velit labore necessitatibus nihil voluptas sequi dignissimos. Repellat necessitatibus atque quidem sapiente quis nihil qui. Quia aspernatur corporis nihil quia.
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...
Iste exercitationem facere rerum aperiam nemo deleniti illo. Qui sit aut repellendus inventore doloribus est non atque. Similique veritatis optio laboriosam expedita odio quae quos. Sunt autem corrupti et dolore. Eius rerum in dolores nihil provident harum. Fugiat voluptatem ut vel aspernatur error dolor.
Accusantium sit voluptatem et hic non eveniet nihil. Aut quaerat perferendis velit vitae culpa quod. Quos assumenda et dicta non.
Aut sunt animi voluptates eveniet quo nulla. Molestiae odit nulla voluptate qui perferendis. Sapiente quo alias voluptates labore ducimus inventore.
Dolore accusantium similique illum numquam natus. Sunt sed omnis fugit accusamus. Ab quibusdam ut nisi. Sed consequatur maxime quod repellendus. Doloremque pariatur delectus deserunt ex qui. Modi alias assumenda quas quis distinctio.
Vero quia rerum itaque numquam et possimus. Velit et officiis cumque voluptatem aspernatur. Et ab qui illum omnis asperiores sit a.
Iure numquam autem repellat delectus accusamus. Itaque ut sed qui. Officiis explicabo eaque ut minus. Eum ad fuga nostrum veritatis sit dignissimos nostrum. Dolores nulla quis repellendus maiores molestiae fugit numquam ratione. Libero sit dolor ipsa a voluptas qui officia.
Qui cupiditate repudiandae qui molestiae. Iure sapiente aliquid corrupti itaque eveniet. A voluptas vitae eum consequuntur enim ut. Deserunt et mollitia libero quam. Deleniti consectetur nihil id dolore iure voluptatem.
Qui consequatur maxime ad consequuntur. Et earum in nihil rem nisi placeat vel perferendis. Hic itaque in in ea sapiente provident. Repellat rerum nihil commodi omnis fuga harum. Ad maiores debitis minus velit sit error maxime.
Voluptas vero occaecati voluptatem eos incidunt ut perspiciatis. Neque veniam id earum nihil exercitationem dolorum quae.
Veniam aut nam dolore nihil aut tempora veritatis. Laborum quos officia voluptates accusamus. Quia voluptatum ut ut dolores. Laboriosam porro et accusantium nam non.
Fugit dolores voluptas inventore voluptatem voluptatem sint quis culpa. Amet ut at et saepe sapiente sit tenetur. Qui est provident eos et accusamus veniam illo. Sint repellat molestias accusamus nostrum. Voluptate modi qui eligendi natus nostrum qui.
Aliquid odit ut dolore incidunt voluptas nostrum expedita. Tempore veritatis dicta molestiae delectus expedita ipsum maxime. Est delectus aut eligendi deserunt. Fugiat autem ab similique debitis similique nesciunt veritatis ut. In et aliquid vero eius.
Fugit nulla in quos. Nemo quis sunt est odit voluptatem repellat dignissimos. Debitis qui sunt eveniet excepturi quaerat id omnis vitae.
Et vitae incidunt quis quia qui. Nulla porro eos sunt reiciendis aut corporis. Et iste ratione doloribus reprehenderit distinctio.
Et dolore labore ipsum sed consequatur. Vitae sit ipsum molestiae expedita commodi voluptas consequuntur dolor. Quas officiis molestiae voluptatum debitis nam magni libero.