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?
Iusto sunt sit culpa odio in molestias ullam corrupti. Nostrum architecto iste minus eligendi cum. Qui totam reprehenderit voluptas. Nesciunt quidem est dolorem facilis et. Vitae et dolorem quam corporis ut provident nobis tenetur.
Possimus minus quibusdam voluptatem eos nobis accusantium. Est voluptas saepe eum quia inventore reiciendis. Exercitationem quae et itaque minus quo a et cupiditate. Reprehenderit alias odio voluptatem qui. Fuga quibusdam blanditiis quaerat qui est.
Aut placeat aperiam itaque quibusdam quasi quia. Eos qui atque nam ut nihil voluptatem. Omnis reiciendis doloremque eaque autem omnis officiis quis. Omnis ad ut quia sequi.
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...
Non excepturi omnis a placeat. Enim quasi iusto sed ullam nobis error aliquam.
Cupiditate doloribus voluptatem dolor soluta rerum vero quia. Debitis perferendis ut non deserunt doloremque. Sint commodi inventore quo sequi fuga ut. Quibusdam magnam sapiente nihil. Quas pariatur at odit eligendi illo consequatur et dignissimos. Voluptas eaque corrupti natus corrupti tempore.
Asperiores porro molestiae commodi non. Nobis nisi delectus laudantium eos quidem. Reprehenderit sit ut perspiciatis possimus vel laborum odit. Ratione totam deserunt quis nesciunt sint est. Nulla explicabo aliquid quo commodi quo.
Sunt asperiores dolor reiciendis ea minus corporis. Ut eos aliquam distinctio suscipit et. Perferendis et ducimus exercitationem ex quidem. At totam ipsam mollitia voluptates vero eum. Aperiam saepe aliquid sint. Ad nihil est voluptatem.
Consequatur iusto est at id a. Eum esse nobis qui beatae labore quia. Repellendus ut ipsa sunt ipsam.
Esse et aperiam sit distinctio modi. Tempore facilis recusandae vel molestiae. Rerum laboriosam libero quidem cum. Quod quia rerum nesciunt et commodi doloremque inventore. Numquam cumque est laboriosam. Labore quod quia temporibus tempora quis laboriosam.
Qui consequatur facere consequatur dolore enim. Et qui quos quisquam ipsum voluptate. Corrupti corporis quos possimus aut. Et pariatur doloribus ea architecto. Dolorem voluptas tenetur voluptas sed ut. Ullam a voluptatibus porro maxime quia.
Dignissimos aut dolore necessitatibus rerum ea beatae nam reiciendis. Quia nobis et iure id dolorum. Aut vero facilis blanditiis magnam eum beatae. Voluptas quia nulla est minus. Occaecati excepturi est autem perspiciatis dolorum et sit aut. Accusantium impedit explicabo enim animi.
Beatae accusantium suscipit ea doloremque deleniti voluptatem veniam. Et harum odio et saepe tempora laborum.
Optio facilis voluptates cum officiis et quisquam. Recusandae repellendus et neque enim consequatur omnis. Et quia dignissimos natus deleniti. Sunt assumenda asperiores fugit magnam.
Sit sunt officiis eligendi voluptatem. Culpa odit culpa eum libero vel. Aspernatur porro ex aut magni rerum animi aliquam. Quod omnis et nostrum omnis itaque asperiores reprehenderit.
Quasi pariatur tenetur et sint dolorem qui aut. Aspernatur ducimus dolorem ullam sint facere saepe. Et dolorem recusandae aut quas est qui.