Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
I don't disagree but I was just wondering if that is in fact the law.
The reason I am so curious about this is because everyone is saying that this now basically makes it impossible for the prosecution to prove their case. If I were on a jury, I would say, yeah, it would be important to me if I owned Martha Stewart stock. So I don't see how keeping the experts out now makes it impossible for the prosecution to make their case.
|
Maybe they failed to put on their witness list an investor who felt defrauded. Obviously in civil class actions, the lead plaintiff could provide such testimony, and likely would. "I bought teh stock because I believed Martha." But since this is criminal, they didn't come up with someone for that testimony other than an expert. Now they're barred from adding witnesses late in teh game.
All speculation and musing, however.
