Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Judge effectively blows out Martha Stewart stock fraud charge...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111328,00.html
Now, for anyone who wants to get hypertechnical, the Judge didn't actually throw out the charge, but this ruling effectively tells the prosecutor "Hey, drop this silly charge" and makes it nearly impossible for the prosecution to get a conviction on the charge.
|
Not to get hypertechnical, but what is the basis for the judge's ruling? According to the story you posted, "[t]he ruling blocks testimony on "whether a reasonable investor would have considered the statements important in making an investment decision," the judge said."
Why is the judge not allowing that testimony in? In hypertechnical legal terms not just because the judge doesn't want the case in his courtroom.
