Tuesday
No, it just means the prosecution screwed up
About five minutes ago, some CNN interviewer was interviewing (surprising, I know) some attorney for Arthur Andersen. They were on to speak about today's Supreme Court decision which I have not read but which I am informed held that: Jury instructions which interpret a particular statute to have at most a nominal scienter requirement are wrong, and Andersen's conviction under those instructions is reversed, though he may be re-tried with proper instructions.
The very first question was, "Did this decision vindicate your client?" And the answer was, "Yes, of course, absolutely." What is the possible point of asking such a question, given that the Andersen attorney couldn't have said anything else? In fact, why are you giving interview time to someone whose job it is to advocate, not commentate? I'm not trying to criticize any interview or press conference of an attorney about a case they're on, there are ways to distinguish this case from one's that aren't totally useless.
|
The very first question was, "Did this decision vindicate your client?" And the answer was, "Yes, of course, absolutely." What is the possible point of asking such a question, given that the Andersen attorney couldn't have said anything else? In fact, why are you giving interview time to someone whose job it is to advocate, not commentate? I'm not trying to criticize any interview or press conference of an attorney about a case they're on, there are ways to distinguish this case from one's that aren't totally useless.
