But I don't, and the 10th Circuit appeals court doesn't either:
Former Qwest chief executive Joe Nacchio was granted a new trial Monday when an appellate panel decided 2-1 to toss his insider-trading conviction because of an error by the trial judge. ...
The majority decision — by Judges Michael McConnell and Paul Kelly — said Nottingham erred in not allowing expert testimony from Northwestern law professor and private consultant Daniel Fischel.
"We conclude that on the record before him the district judge was wrong to prevent Professor Fischel from providing expert analysis, and that this error was not harmless," the ruling states.
To be honest though, I could care less about the expert's testimony - I have no idea what he was going to testify about. It's Nacchio's other main (losing) argument on appeal that bugs me:
Mr. Nacchio also argues that the district court was wrong to prevent him from presenting certain classified information as evidence at trial. He claims that the evidence would have shown that he personally had reason to believe that Qwest’s economic prospects were much better than others realized. Thus, he says, this evidence should have been permitted both to show that he did not have material information and to negate scienter. We affirm the district court’s decision, because even if the classified information were presented and established what he said it would, it could not exonerate Mr. Nacchio as he claims....
Essentially, Mr. Nacchio argues that undisclosed positive information can be used as a defense to a charge of trading on undisclosed negative information. We disagree. If an insider has material information that he cannot disclose because it is confidential or proprietary, then he must abstain from trading. That is the lesson of In re Cady, Roberts & Co....
Note the oblique reference to "classified information." What was that, anyway?
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal. ...
In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest's refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution. He is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.
So let's review:
1) Qwest had major government contracts in the pipeline in 2001, as the company was facing other financial difficulties.
2) Qwest got approached by the Bush Administration to see if the company would mind breaking privacy laws by helping the government illegally spy on millions of Americans contacting or being contacted by anyone overseas.
3) Qwest lawyers and Joe Nacchio reviewed the request and said "No. That would be illegal."
4) George Bush gets pissed, the government retaliates and Qwest loses all above-mentioned major contracts.
5) Joe Nacchio gets convicted of insider trading after the judge refused to allow classified evidence regarding the illegal spying into court under the "State Secrets" doctrine.
As to the above court holding regarding the classified evidence, it's absurd on its face. The court would have had Nacchio abstain from trading notwithstanding the fact that he thought the good and the bad future acts would cancel each other out. Cady, Roberts didn't address this situation at all and is, as they say, clearly distinguishable.
So that part of the holding is ridiculous, but whatever. Nacchio will get a new day in court in front of a new judge. It'll be interesting to see whether this classified information gets in.
After all, it'd just be shocking to discover that George Bush sold a corporate CEO down the river on criminal charges after fucking his company for obeying the law. Right? Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment