you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Martha Stewart wasn’t actually convicted for insider trading, the judge threw that charge (securities fraud) out saying that no competent juror could find her guilty of it.

I can’t remember if the true basis for dismissing the charge was lack of evidence or a judicial determination, but if it was the latter that’s pretty damning (that investigators didn’t have a case); as a determination of innocence presumes all evidence is factual, to a reasonable extent, and a determination of no crime having taken place does the same in concluding that the evidence describes no crime relating to the dismissed charge having taken place. A kind of legal non-sequitor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment