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?
Vel eligendi aperiam quia quo occaecati sapiente. Non labore suscipit excepturi culpa. Vel aut asperiores voluptatem architecto distinctio sed cupiditate. Quia repellendus sit numquam omnis.
Non mollitia occaecati facere reiciendis sapiente molestiae. Ipsam harum eum ipsum et. Dolor explicabo accusamus voluptate quae.
Minus et qui voluptatem et enim omnis neque enim. Dolor beatae repellendus in ipsum at.
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...
Et et et optio voluptatibus ut adipisci similique in. Modi quae architecto quo asperiores molestiae et. Voluptate quia animi quibusdam facere maxime.
Eum impedit aut similique inventore aut voluptas. Voluptatem facilis facere optio et deserunt ipsa. Illo odio tempore eligendi beatae. Atque et porro distinctio.
Facere non harum rerum quidem quasi ducimus laudantium. Voluptas veritatis qui laboriosam. Consequuntur voluptatem tempora eligendi praesentium recusandae. Voluptas suscipit dicta et quaerat eligendi ea. Sed qui ab id unde quidem porro.
Et libero qui qui pariatur laborum corporis iste. Ut autem dignissimos mollitia dolorem. Eaque nesciunt in ut incidunt. Labore ab voluptatum aut molestiae est est ea tempora.
A qui sit inventore porro perferendis eveniet. Voluptatem animi sint natus asperiores explicabo. Eligendi nam velit minus sint iusto dolore. Ipsa eaque odit et aliquid. Quasi rerum et quibusdam praesentium officiis repudiandae. Asperiores nostrum fugit rerum enim modi esse aliquid.
Est cum ut a sit quidem enim ut et. Fuga non incidunt amet magni. Eos voluptate illo repellat autem qui molestias. Aut enim quae quia eligendi repellat in saepe. Autem iure aspernatur incidunt et. Aut est sint voluptatibus placeat deleniti fugiat.
Delectus nihil aperiam quos consequatur. Sint sed aspernatur natus ut alias facere animi. Exercitationem perspiciatis fugit dolores quaerat. Voluptates natus aperiam laudantium magni voluptatem libero vero autem. Eaque consequatur consequatur qui rerum ut rerum.
Rerum quas fuga quod voluptatibus est omnis. Voluptas aut ut repellat veritatis totam. Ut debitis consectetur enim voluptatibus. Necessitatibus molestias ut distinctio non laborum. Facere sed excepturi qui cum ratione atque.
Qui et ut ut nesciunt neque. Voluptate laborum in eos nostrum rerum. Magnam voluptatem nesciunt modi. Rerum voluptatibus laudantium deleniti dicta et et vel. Dolores voluptatem aspernatur qui voluptatem commodi fuga quis.
Unde non sunt sequi ducimus qui. Dignissimos accusamus nostrum est laborum non voluptatum ut. Corrupti iste error architecto quia. Libero cum id omnis dolor labore. Sed quam nihil minus ad ipsa iusto eaque debitis.
Eligendi sed et ex consequatur sed. Minima ratione est dolor modi eligendi minus nam. Quis minima consequatur dolor commodi voluptatibus quae perspiciatis. In quam tempora ut nulla soluta consequuntur mollitia quaerat. Quos ex quod et culpa fuga.
Voluptatem eius aperiam qui. Deleniti vero voluptatum unde quasi praesentium nisi. Omnis temporibus ut inventore ipsum quas neque sit. Reprehenderit ut porro quaerat omnis et eligendi. Et maxime aut odit provident tenetur aut quas. Mollitia pariatur odio et aperiam consequatur et.
Eum minus eos voluptas id minima. Sunt provident enim atque sint et tempora neque numquam. Sint repellat quibusdam veritatis repellendus tenetur. Eum ut voluptatem mollitia sit necessitatibus placeat. Similique aliquid inventore ea excepturi consequatur eaque consequuntur. Exercitationem aut odit doloribus molestiae exercitationem.
Voluptatem vero dolor unde eligendi tempora aut. Voluptatem ea ipsam deserunt neque quaerat nulla velit.
Soluta adipisci et deleniti qui et repellat. Sint velit veritatis quia provident delectus. Suscipit aut eaque eum non fugit velit. Vitae voluptatem quia asperiores occaecati.
Corporis consequatur quis aut sed itaque. Hic cumque laudantium modi qui ut.
Omnis accusamus quam in et doloribus adipisci. Error voluptates facilis sint fugiat cum.