Friday, April 02, 2004
The Tyco disaster
The Tyco financial scandals trial began on October 7, nearly six months ago, and ended today when the judge ordered a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict after 11 days of deliberation. There's news all over the place, but here's a good analysis from MSNBC. (Note that the article quotes one Professor Bainbridge, the premier corporate law blogger -- his page has long held an honored link in the TigerHawk blogroll to the right.)
In any case, I have not been following the trial in great detail, although I have generally formed the impression that Koszkowski and his crew were playing fast and loose, whether or not their behavior was demonstrably criminal. Long before Tyco stock fell the shorts were circling Captain Springload and his merry men, and it is often the case that where there's shorts, there's mire.
You have to think, though, that keeping New York jurors on duty for a six month trial runs some serious risk of ticking at least one of them off big time. It seems to the casual observor that the prosecution pursued a more tedious case than was necessary for a conviction. Perhaps the next time around -- if there is a next time around -- they should streamline it.
The press didn't help things, either. One of TigerHawk's friends is a former Assistant United States Attorney, and he holds the otherwise esteemed Wall Street Journal at least partly to blame for publishing the name of juror 4, who was, when all was said and done, one angry woman. Here's the letter that he sent the editors of the WSJ, which I publish here on the off chance that TigerHawk's slim but influential readership is its only audience:
The Journal's publication of the name of a juror has to be the poorest decision I have seen from a major U.S. newspaper (top ten editorial staff/news staff), perhaps in my lifetime.
I am very disappointed. This has nothing to do with my current position but with my 7 years as an AUSA, trying 20 cases, handling 60+ appeals, and watching about 100 trials. I cannot imagine what fit of irresponsibility led the Journal to do such a thing. Put aside the resulting mis-trial, it was a very bad editorial decision. Worse, it did not require great judgment and insight to make.
I, frankly, was appalled. It is hard enough to pick and seat a jury;many people, especially those with substantial education, try to get out of their civic duty; and every single jury I have seen takes its job very seriously. (I could tell the Martha Stewart case would be a conviction long before the press, after her friend testified, because I knew that 99% of juries would convict.)
It is a shame -- an irresponsible mis-use of press freedom -- that a newspaper with the Journal's amazing reputation would make such a silly, embarrassing, irresponsible mistake. Very disappointing.
If the WSJ was in fact the paper that first published juror 4's name, I agree completely.
UPDATE (Sat morning): The prosecutors are seeking a new trial. Whether they will pursue it to the end or have simply declared their intention in the hopes of improving their leverage in settlement discussion remains to be seen. This A.P. article discusses that question, and includes a useful summary of the trial, the issues involved, and the controversy around juror 4. What will come of the investigation into the letter sent to Ruth Jordan? And what a toughie she is! An independant woman if there ever was one.
Seperately, three of the jurors have now been interviewed on television, and I saw one of them last night. They were not, apparently, swayed by the prosecution's use of emotional, but perhaps not probative, evidence that Koszlowski spent corporate funds on the finer things in life, as it were. Yet more evidence that bashing rich individuals - as opposed to "corporations" - almost never works in America.
In any case, I have not been following the trial in great detail, although I have generally formed the impression that Koszkowski and his crew were playing fast and loose, whether or not their behavior was demonstrably criminal. Long before Tyco stock fell the shorts were circling Captain Springload and his merry men, and it is often the case that where there's shorts, there's mire.
You have to think, though, that keeping New York jurors on duty for a six month trial runs some serious risk of ticking at least one of them off big time. It seems to the casual observor that the prosecution pursued a more tedious case than was necessary for a conviction. Perhaps the next time around -- if there is a next time around -- they should streamline it.
The press didn't help things, either. One of TigerHawk's friends is a former Assistant United States Attorney, and he holds the otherwise esteemed Wall Street Journal at least partly to blame for publishing the name of juror 4, who was, when all was said and done, one angry woman. Here's the letter that he sent the editors of the WSJ, which I publish here on the off chance that TigerHawk's slim but influential readership is its only audience:
The Journal's publication of the name of a juror has to be the poorest decision I have seen from a major U.S. newspaper (top ten editorial staff/news staff), perhaps in my lifetime.
I am very disappointed. This has nothing to do with my current position but with my 7 years as an AUSA, trying 20 cases, handling 60+ appeals, and watching about 100 trials. I cannot imagine what fit of irresponsibility led the Journal to do such a thing. Put aside the resulting mis-trial, it was a very bad editorial decision. Worse, it did not require great judgment and insight to make.
I, frankly, was appalled. It is hard enough to pick and seat a jury;many people, especially those with substantial education, try to get out of their civic duty; and every single jury I have seen takes its job very seriously. (I could tell the Martha Stewart case would be a conviction long before the press, after her friend testified, because I knew that 99% of juries would convict.)
It is a shame -- an irresponsible mis-use of press freedom -- that a newspaper with the Journal's amazing reputation would make such a silly, embarrassing, irresponsible mistake. Very disappointing.
If the WSJ was in fact the paper that first published juror 4's name, I agree completely.
UPDATE (Sat morning): The prosecutors are seeking a new trial. Whether they will pursue it to the end or have simply declared their intention in the hopes of improving their leverage in settlement discussion remains to be seen. This A.P. article discusses that question, and includes a useful summary of the trial, the issues involved, and the controversy around juror 4. What will come of the investigation into the letter sent to Ruth Jordan? And what a toughie she is! An independant woman if there ever was one.
Seperately, three of the jurors have now been interviewed on television, and I saw one of them last night. They were not, apparently, swayed by the prosecution's use of emotional, but perhaps not probative, evidence that Koszlowski spent corporate funds on the finer things in life, as it were. Yet more evidence that bashing rich individuals - as opposed to "corporations" - almost never works in America.
0 Comments:
