Posted: 5/7/2011 5:41:42 AM

By: jurisper

The jury notes filed at closing of this case do suggest that maybe the prosecution wasn't very successful at presenting technical stuff to the jury.

As the jury starts its deliberations, they send a note to the judge, "We need the tape!"

Then a bit later: "When it comes to stocks, warrants, trades, shells ... etc, what can one do legally and illegally?"

The judge declined to address this rather broad issue: "I cannot answer the question you have asked. Please refer to the jury instructions for the legal principles you are to apply."

Reading the instructions, I don't think the jury would have found in them elightenement on the question.

Posted: 4/28/2011 7:34:29 PM

By: jurisper

Noting that Lauer's attorney was the asst federal public defender - kudos to him!

Wondering to what extent the acquittal is because of negative kudos due to the prosecutors - is the DoJ in Florida burdened with mediocrity (as has sometimes seemed the case in other matters)?

Or if it was always going to be a tough case to sell to a jury - ie technical; with evidence of criminal intent relying mainly on the testimony of shady insiders with plea agreements?

Anyway, I guess the outcome won't be helpful for feds trying to put together other cases of the same kind.

Posted: 4/27/2011 4:50:32 PM

By: jurisper

Blah.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-27/lancer-group-founder-michael-lauer-acquitted-of-stock-fraud-in-hedge-funds.html