It's not entirely clear why lying about a matter on which no prosecution is brought should itself be an offense.
Gee Mr. Steyn, would it make you happy if the prosecutor brought up charges of insider trading, even if she is easily acquitted, because they don't have the evidence that Stewart and her cohorts prevented the prosecution from obtaining?
posted on 03/05/2004 3:06:17 PM PST
The evidence of insider trading was identical to the evidence of lying. It's just that legally the government had no case for insider trading. The government's stock fraud charge was so bizarre that I assume if they thought they had any chance of getting an insider trading conviction they would have brought that charge also. I am in substantial agreement with Mark Steyn.
The judge in this case forbade the defense from pointing out to the jury that Martha had not been charged with insider trading, and this will undoubtedly be a subject of Martha's appeal.
posted on 03/05/2004 3:41:50 PM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson