[doug9732]

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.

[WarrenC]

I read somewhere (National Review maybe?) that Martha S. was absolutely not guilty of insider trading - that even if she had said she sold because her broker advised her Imclone's CEO was selling, that is still not insider trading.