Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Glenn
I think that Andersen did destroy the documents with the intent to obstruct justice. But I do have a hard time with the concept of assessing criminal liability to a corporation. Civil, yes. Criminal charges against the individuals involved, yes. But criminal against the corporation? No.

I would really like to know what people think about Andersen's attorney Rusty Hardin, who tried this case in a very confrontational (to the prosecution and the judge), melodramatic, shove-it-down-your-throat style. It was a high stakes strategy. (Example: He taunted the prosecutors, calling them whiners, cry babies, etc. in open court.) Did it backfire? Or was Andersen lost anyway?
7 posted on 06/15/2002 8:50:55 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Iwo Jima
Did it backfire? Or was Andersen lost anyway?

I believe that Hardin represents Andersen's corporate culture perfectly (i.e., arrogant and confrontational). In all liklihood, he felt (correctly, IMO) that Andersen was lost...note that he argued from an emotional perspective less than from the viewpoint of the facts or the elements of the law.

There is a saying, which I'll probably mangle, that goes along the lines of "If the facts are on your side, argue them. If the facts are against you, argue the detail of the law. And if both the facts and the laws are aginst you, pound the table." Hardin pounded the table.

21 posted on 06/15/2002 9:08:21 AM PDT by neutrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Iwo Jima
I would really like to know what people think about Andersen's attorney Rusty Hardin, who tried this case in a very confrontational (to the prosecution and the judge), melodramatic, shove-it-down-your-throat style. It was a high stakes strategy. (Example: He taunted the prosecutors, calling them whiners, cry babies, etc. in open court.) Did it backfire? Or was Andersen lost anyway?

That it took as long as it did for the jury to arrive at a decision is a tribute to Hardin's skills as a litigator. The government had a great set of facts and Andersen had an extremely weak defense. Hardin made the best use of the factsd that he had and Andersen's only chance was for Hardin to portray the the case a government run amok. It didn't work, but that was the only chance AA had for victory.

58 posted on 06/15/2002 12:41:17 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson