Friday, April 20, 2007

Justice Denied – The War On Business

The State conducts the trial. The State determines what evidence will be allowed. The State then instructs the jurors how to decide the case, leaving no room for them to determine if a law is just or logical.

Without the discretion of informed juries to reign in abusive prosecutions and unjust laws the jurors are a mere rubber stamp of the structure the State has presented. In other words, the jurors simply agree that the evidence approved by the State meets the standards of the crime set by the State - not a very high bar.

The Enron Pattern Continues

The prosecutions pattern of attacking business should be clear. The State will load up the charges on a near innocent underling with everything from Section 1001 violations to jay walking so the underling is facing 100+ years in prison even if they beat the majority of the charges. Once they have the gun to his face, a sweetheart deal is offered for full cooperation All the patsy has to do is testify that the Boss was fully responsible for any and all crimes committed. Since white-collar prosecutors generally won’t have other evidence, they need an insider to have any case at all.

A witness for the prosecution will have the threat of prison over his head until the end of the trial thereby ensuring his continued cooperation. The quid pro quo is complete when the prosecutors get their man and the witness redeems his get out of jail free card.


How the Prosecutors Get Their Man – Tactic 1: Blocking Exculpatory Evidence

The prosecution can control what the jurors know by blocking potentially exculpatory evidence from being presented. This technique was abused and tragically underreported during the Enron trial when a record number of unindicted co-conspirators were named. The threat of criminal prosecution of the unindicted co-conspirators ensured none would testify for the defense. This prevented most of the witnesses that could clear Skilling and Lay from getting on the stand, making the State’s case a lay-up and the jury clueless as to what they missed.

The technique of blocking exculpatory evidence was used again in the Joseph Nacchio case. The former Quest CEO was accused of insider trading for selling stock while apparently knowing that the finances of the firm were in trouble. Ignoring the fact that CEO’s are NEVER openly bearish on their own stocks, Nacchio had knowledge of secret government projects which, if they came through, would justify the optimistic projections made to investors. In a Kafka like twist, the government declared the contracts too secret to be revealed in court leaving Nacchio without his main defense.


Labels: ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous said...

I think you're misinterpreting the function of a jury. Possibly even suggesting that a jury should decide if the law is just or reasonable? A jury is not supposed to have law-making powers or capabilities; they serve the function of applying the specific facts of a case to the existing law. Although your abusive prosecution argument has merit, the answer isn't some vigilante jury deciding on their individual notions of fairness or justice, or seeking evidence on their own to try and decide a case.

2:27 PM  
NastyBrutishAndTall said...

An important job of the jury IS to decide if a law is just or reasonable. How else could a jury act to offer protection from the State? The Jury is not a legislative body of course, but they do have a de facto veto of laws by virtue of the fact they can just vote Not Guilty. As Spooner expressed it, there are barriers in place that a law has to pass before it is accepted. It has to go through the house, the senate, the executive, THE JURY, and finally the courts. Anyone of them has the ability to stop a law cold.

An informed jury is a great answer to unjust laws and an abusive prosecution. A jury can act to protect liberty in a way that no other democratic process can. No expensive and corrupt lobbying. No waiting for the next election. An unjust law can be neutralized instantly, something that juries did during prohibition and to stop enforcement of Fugitive Slave Act.

Some critics say that letting the jury have that power is a recipe for anarchy. This fails to realize that the jury has always had the power to decide which laws to enforce. The State is not a god. Its courtroom instructions are guidelines on how a case should be conducted but ones morals should never a back seat to bureaucratic decree.

12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home