Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sr K who wrote (69014)	9/21/2007 11:38:20 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

yes there was a ruling, the judge denied the new trial "in blunt terms" as this article states, with a TON of incorrect inference and implications. There is no difference in my mind between this backdating prosecutorial malfeasance, and the nutty BS this DOJ exhibits with terrorists. They are corrupt, plain and simple. If Jobs enters this system, he will go down imho. Brocade judge denies Reyes new trial in blunt terms But Judge Breyer accepted the prosecutors’ argument that their position, the SEC’s, and the evidence were all consistent: by falsifying corporate minutes Reyes could have intended to deceive accounting and finance officials, even if, over time, some of those officials eventually came to realize, or should have come to realize, what was going on. Rather than punish the prosecutors by ordering a new trial, as Marmaro had asked, Judge Breyer criticized Marmaro, accusing him of not just pointing out gaps in the prosecution’s evidence to the jury — which is perfectly proper — but of “gap-filling,” which is not. “Defense counsel repeatedly represented to the jury what absent witnesses would have said if they had been called,” he wrote. Breyer said the uncalled witnesses — which included all of the company’s highest finance and accounting officials — could have been called by either side. legalpad.blogs.fortune.com (btw go ahead and read the comments on this fortune link- Apple is mentioned) The fact is the DOJ lied and said the Brocade finance people had no knowledge of backdating and did not approve it all through the trial. When the defense called this out as prosecutorial misconduct based on interviews with witnesses that said they knew of the backdating and didn't feel it needed to be expensed, the judge tried to explain away their testimony saying "oh well, they found out about it LATER but were deceived early on. So the prosecutors weren't lying" or something to that effect. When the judge said the defense could have called these same witnesses that is also stretching the truth because the prosecution had most of them under subpoena, which meant if they were called they would plead the fifth, so the defense won't risk that (juries don't like that- doesn't look good for defense). Sound fair to you or anybody here? Still believe if Jobs has nothing to hide he should just tell the truth and if he's innocent all will be fine?