FierceFinance’s Jim Kim writes: it's fair to say that the
trial of Rajat Gupta, the former Goldman Sachs director who stands accused of
leaking inside information, has been beset with lots of delays, as the lawyers
argue frequently and at length while the jury is out of the room. The question is, which side stands to benefit
more from this?
The New York Times reports that, "During one of those
arguments on Monday, Judge Rakoff seemed to reach his boiling point. 'We have
spent far too much time in this trial arguing every point to the nth degree,'
Judge Rakoff said, his voice rising in anger. 'I don't want to hear anything
more from either side and I want the jury in here right now.' "
The frequent starts, stops and delays just might make it
hard for the jury to maintain its train of thought, especially given the rather
arcane approach that the prosecution has chosen. It has opted to build its case
via a meticulous detailing of, for example, Goldman Sachs board meetings. The
upshot of his lengthy testimony was that the proceedings were secret and not to
be shared with others. While some legal professionals might appreciate the
thoroughness, others could easily argue that this is boring the jury in
detrimental ways. At the end of the day, if the entire case seems disjointed,
it may be more difficult for the jury to conclude that prosecution presented an
air tight case that left no doubts as to guilt.....
\
Read more at FierceFinance.com
No comments:
Post a Comment