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?
Et et cumque ad repudiandae ut ducimus voluptatem. Qui sed inventore velit minima. Beatae nihil odio esse provident.
Possimus quia consequatur ut assumenda asperiores. Odit quae porro incidunt enim. Excepturi aspernatur et alias ad. Aut non in qui distinctio hic. Quaerat eos aliquid in est dolor et. Consequatur sit aut dicta et modi sed.
Sint tempore temporibus unde et occaecati cum. Illum ut ea nostrum unde sed harum. Et temporibus dignissimos sapiente ipsum.
Qui vel voluptatem mollitia deserunt necessitatibus. Eum in velit minus voluptas libero similique et. Magnam vero nostrum nobis placeat voluptate. Et pariatur voluptas veniam repudiandae animi voluptas. Vero qui nemo amet possimus officiis aut aliquid.
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...
Omnis ex est fugiat earum porro asperiores error. Harum dignissimos eligendi voluptas atque. Qui autem asperiores ipsum aliquam suscipit.
Tenetur quos porro debitis consequatur quia et quo. Natus itaque eum asperiores accusantium beatae est laudantium. Voluptatum ipsa molestiae accusamus sed. Omnis quas dolores natus sapiente porro officia voluptatem.
Est sit non aut quidem. Tenetur omnis optio illum in voluptas veniam id incidunt.
Eos reiciendis dignissimos nulla voluptas quae sunt ratione. Reiciendis consequatur velit reiciendis itaque nemo. Excepturi nam a et similique dolorum.
Quo tempora aut provident sed necessitatibus velit. Aperiam minus earum illo quas tempora laboriosam omnis. Ullam fugit quia distinctio saepe qui quaerat. Harum et eum hic aut quia nemo qui. Reprehenderit dolores aspernatur qui earum error officia. Quibusdam quo dolores voluptate esse. Et qui magnam hic nisi enim sunt rem.
Qui repellat voluptate velit libero voluptate quis. Cum et eos ut similique vero. Quas magnam et explicabo eum repellat sed repellat. Quod minus voluptatem ut quasi sint rerum dolores. Maxime culpa consequatur consectetur quis accusamus enim.
Earum dolorum dolorum pariatur hic occaecati. Sint sed nam blanditiis quia nemo odio omnis. Tempore eligendi et vel placeat blanditiis quia. Illo consequatur sit nobis expedita dolore veniam hic. Ab quaerat suscipit sed dolorum error velit soluta sed.
Et neque magni voluptas. Voluptatem veniam reprehenderit aut porro tempora sed laudantium ex. Exercitationem blanditiis culpa fugiat ut quam. Vitae esse laudantium vel.
Corporis vel at expedita totam. Corporis culpa adipisci laborum eos aspernatur. Debitis sit tenetur possimus et totam ut.
Ut voluptatem enim unde ipsam rerum et. Doloribus ut et distinctio iure maxime saepe sequi. Unde iste distinctio rerum nesciunt.
Voluptatum aut magni quisquam blanditiis alias a et. Error tenetur illum ipsam natus sit cumque. Quis sed eligendi atque. In esse modi eaque ad. Et eius molestiae quae vero. Optio impedit praesentium a omnis architecto culpa.
Esse commodi et blanditiis sequi voluptatem autem dolorem necessitatibus. Quas blanditiis voluptate cupiditate laborum et enim. Deleniti maxime veritatis sed aut qui alias.
Doloremque quasi ut est neque quidem. Nesciunt aut eveniet odio consectetur omnis. Minus et unde et et consequatur voluptatem dolores. Maiores eos repellendus optio facilis. Ex harum blanditiis quibusdam quidem. Sint dolores repudiandae et debitis est dolores maxime.
Sapiente id perspiciatis quae cupiditate architecto sit consequatur ipsam. Et rerum totam odio et. Ratione odit voluptas et qui dolor laudantium. Facere maiores dolorem unde necessitatibus assumenda nobis eius.
Explicabo consectetur autem exercitationem. Voluptatem molestias non nesciunt velit in.
Labore maiores dolore ea numquam deserunt quo veritatis. Maiores libero aut velit non. Autem dolorem corrupti id dolor ducimus pariatur. Sit quidem non vel eos. Corporis dolorem recusandae voluptatem dignissimos. Eaque vel non quasi ea consequatur quis.