5 ms·

If you read the entire article, this seems to be the timeline: 1) He is tried for insider trading, and convicted. 2) He appeals this because the trial exclude

by blhack 13y ago

If you read the entire article, this seems to be the timeline: 1) He is tried for insider trading, and convicted. 2) He appeals this because the trial excluded a key witness that supported his innocence . 3) He WINS this appeal, and is granted another trial. 4) He is tried again, this time not in front of a jury. The circuit court of appeals, where this is tried (stressing: without a jury this time) convicts him 5-4. This isn't nearly as clear cut as some of the people in this thread are making it, and it does arouse some suspicion.

tptacek 13y ago
There is no such thing as a jury trial in front of an appeals court; appeals court outcomes include overturned convictions, upheld convictions, and new trials in front of district courts. This timeline does not make sense.
- blhack 13y ago
  But it wasn't remanded back to a district court, they retried in front of the 10th circuit court. Regardless, he was never rightfully convicted by a jury. The trial in which he was found guilty by a jury was found to have denied him a proper defense (by an appeals court).
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It doesn't look like he was retried. The 10th Circuit is an appeals court. They overturned his conviction, evaluated some new evidence, then reinstated the conviction.
_delirium 13y ago
I don't think #4 is correct; that wasn't a trial, but a review of the appellate decision. The timeline as I read it is this: 1. He is tried (in district court, with a jury) for insider trading, and convicted. 2. He appeals to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. A 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit holds that the exclusion of a witness prejudiced his trial, and sets aside his conviction, ordering a new trial. 4. The prosecution appeals that holding to the en banc 10th Circuit. 5. The full 9-judge 10th Circuit re-hears the appeal, and sets aside the panel's decision (by a narrow 5-4 vote), reinstating the original conviction. 6. He petitions the Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn the en banc 10th Circuit's decision, arguing that the panel's decision overturning the conviction had been correct. 7. The Supreme Court declines to hear the case, which ends the series of appeals and leaves the original conviction in place.
- rdl 13y ago
  This seems like a pretty clear case of 9th circuit = best circuit. I personally factor "remaining in the 9th" heavily into my decisions about where to live and work within the US.

by blhack 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

There is no such thing as a jury trial in front of an appeals court; appeals court outcomes include overturned convictions, upheld convictions, and new trials in front of district courts. This timeline does not make sense.

blhack 13y ago
But it wasn't remanded back to a district court, they retried in front of the 10th circuit court. Regardless, he was never rightfully convicted by a jury. The trial in which he was found guilty by a jury was found to have denied him a proper defense (by an appeals court).
- tptacek 13y ago
  It doesn't look like he was retried. The 10th Circuit is an appeals court. They overturned his conviction, evaluated some new evidence, then reinstated the conviction.

_delirium 13y ago

I don't think #4 is correct; that wasn't a trial, but a review of the appellate decision. The timeline as I read it is this: 1. He is tried (in district court, with a jury) for insider trading, and convicted. 2. He appeals to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. A 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit holds that the exclusion of a witness prejudiced his trial, and sets aside his conviction, ordering a new trial. 4. The prosecution appeals that holding to the en banc 10th Circuit. 5. The full 9-judge 10th Circuit re-hears the appeal, and sets aside the panel's decision (by a narrow 5-4 vote), reinstating the original conviction. 6. He petitions the Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn the en banc 10th Circuit's decision, arguing that the panel's decision overturning the conviction had been correct. 7. The Supreme Court declines to hear the case, which ends the series of appeals and leaves the original conviction in place.

rdl 13y ago
This seems like a pretty clear case of 9th circuit = best circuit. I personally factor "remaining in the 9th" heavily into my decisions about where to live and work within the US.