Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

miamiherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#51

Post by rayiner »

jasonwilk wrote: post #4

Glad to see this is over for Mark. Definitely worth noting he spent far more on his lawyers to win this case than what it would have cost him to just pay the fines and have the SEC get a quick win for bullying. I think he proved a major point today in how the SEC has no transparency and if not for his money, he wouldn't have had any choice but to lay down for them. It's a broken system. Good for him!

How does this prove that "the SEC has no transparency"? The SEC had a credible basis for bringing a civil case, but ultimately couldn't meet its burden of proof. That's not "bullying."

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#52

Post by rayiner »

hristov wrote: post #18
dreamdu5t wrote: post #16

Insider trading laws should be repealed. People selling shares based on nonpublic information introduces said information to the market more quickly. It's also a victimless act, a willing buyer and a willing seller decide to trade based on the information they know, with shares that were purchased without any agreement to not sell them based on the information the owner knows. It's just ridiculous that Congress condu…

It is not a victim-less act. The person that goes into a transaction without knowing insider information usually believes they were cheated. Quite rightfully so. Your first point is wrong as well. If insider trading were legal there would be a huge incentive for insiders to keep inside information away from the public. This would lead to slower dissemination of inside information. It would also lead to great economic…

It's not a victimless act, but that doesn't mean it should be criminal. I'm of the opinion that most "financial crimes" are on pretty questionable footing and should just be civil suits. Of course this was a civil suit so I don't see the big deal.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#53

Post by ksherlock »

beambot wrote: post #24
rosser wrote: post #11

The jury didn't say he "did not commit insider trading"; they said the government didn't prove that he committed insider trading . They didn't say he's innocent of the charges, but that he's not guilty of them. There's an important difference between the two.

Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty".

In California, there is a Petition for Factual Innocence/Declaration of Factual Innocence. The judge (not the jury) makes the determination.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#54

Post by [deleted] »

gamblor956 wrote: post #31
jtreminio wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that in America people are innocent until proven guilty. In the eyes of the law, he is innocent.

No, in the eyes of the law, he is "not guilty." Innocence is a factual finding which has the same burden of proof as guilt because it is a definitive finding that the defendant did not commit the crime charged. Judges admonish juries that people are "innocent until proven guilty" becaues most jurors aren't sophisticated enough to make the distinction.

[deleted]

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#55

Post by SeanLuke »

dragonwriter wrote: post #39
gamblor956 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state. Guilty = beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged. Not guilty = the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged Innocent = beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., factual impossibility) that the defendant did not commit the crime alleged. It is exceedingly rare for…

> Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state. Except in the case of things like the Scottish three-verdict system (which doesn't follow the conditions that you lay out), this is generally not true. Particularly, in the US, generally "guilty" and "not guilty" are the only possible verdicts in most criminal cases (there are certain cases where "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty…

The point stands though: "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent". Juries in criminal trials do not determine innocence. They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Just because the government couldn't prove its claim doesn't mean the claim was false.

It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#56

Post by SeanLuke »

jtreminio wrote: post #27
rosser wrote: post #11

The jury didn't say he "did not commit insider trading"; they said the government didn't prove that he committed insider trading . They didn't say he's innocent of the charges, but that he's not guilty of them. There's an important difference between the two.

Except that in America people are innocent until proven guilty. In the eyes of the law, he is innocent.

> Except that in America people are innocent until proven guilty.

This is a slogan, not a legal statement.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#57

Post by dragonwriter »

ksherlock wrote: post #53
beambot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty".

In California, there is a Petition for Factual Innocence/Declaration of Factual Innocence. The judge (not the jury) makes the determination.

True; the main purpose of the Petition/Declaration of Factual Innocence seems to be to seal (and eventually expunge) arrest/prosecution records and legally allow a person to answer "No" to whether they have ever been arrested or charged with a crime, and it applies to arrests even where no charges were ever filed.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#58

Post by dragonwriter »

SeanLuke wrote: post #55
dragonwriter wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state. Except in the case of things like the Scottish three-verdict system (which doesn't follow the conditions that you lay out), this is generally not true. Particularly, in the US, generally "guilty" and "not guilty" are the only possible verdicts in most criminal cases (there are certain cases where "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty…

The point stands though: "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent". Juries in criminal trials do not determine innocence. They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Just because the government couldn't prove its claim doesn't mean the claim was false. It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.

> "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent"

Yeah, it is. That's exactly what "not guilty" means.

> They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt.

Right. Because people are presumed innocent. The failure to overcome the burden of proof to rebut a presumption means that the presumption is true. That's what a legal presumption means.

> It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.

Agreed. In fact, I said that upthread.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#59

Post by SheepSlapper »

dragonwriter wrote: post #58
SeanLuke wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point stands though: "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent". Juries in criminal trials do not determine innocence. They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Just because the government couldn't prove its claim doesn't mean the claim was false. It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.

> "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent" Yeah, it is. That's exactly what "not guilty" means. > They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Right. Because people are presumed innocent. The failure to overcome the burden of proof to rebut a presumption means that the presumption is true. That's what a legal presumption means . > It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal cas…

No, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", for the same reasons as posted above. "Not guilty" means we can't prove you're guilty of something, "innocent" means we CAN prove you didn't do it.

"Not guilty" is not a claim to absolute knowledge, where as "innocent" is. And that's an important distinction.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#60

Post by joe_the_user »

smalter wrote: post #43
rosser wrote: post #11

The jury didn't say he "did not commit insider trading"; they said the government didn't prove that he committed insider trading . They didn't say he's innocent of the charges, but that he's not guilty of them. There's an important difference between the two.

this comment is really off point. there's no guilty/not guilty/innocence distinction here because this wasn't even a criminal case, it was a civil case. in addition, the statement "the government didn't prove insider trading" is tantamount to the statement "mark cuban did not commit insider trading" because the case boiled down to a disputed question of fact, and what actually happened is unknowable.

Yes gak,

"He wasn't proven innocent" is a rhetorical attack that can be made against virtually anyone who has been tried and not convicted in the US.

Indeed doubly off-topic as this is a civil matter.

But it still should be noted that, given prosecutors in the US have a high (up to 90%+) conviction rate, not being proven guilty is pretty good as far as exoneration goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

Post reply on HN