The only thing I’d be impartial about is what prison this guy goes to.
August 16, 2017 8:27 AM Subscribe
More than 200 potential jurors were excused during the jury selection process for the trial of Martin Shkreli, former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. Among the reasons jurors gave for feeling that they could not be impartial: Shkreli disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan, and he kind of looks like a dick.
Shkreli was convicted on three of eight counts and says he is "delighted" with the verdict. His sentence has not yet been issued.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- Brandon Blatcher
He was convicted of everything but the "conspiracy to..." charges. Can someone with a better understanding of the law explain that? Doesn't it require more than one person to be a "conspiracy"? So were they unable to prove that Shkreli worked with others, and does failing to convict on conspiracy charges really matter regarding his sentencing?
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:33 AM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:33 AM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
> Shkreli disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan
To be fair, they aren't a group with which one should trifle.
posted by glonous keming at 8:39 AM on August 16, 2017 [86 favorites]
To be fair, they aren't a group with which one should trifle.
posted by glonous keming at 8:39 AM on August 16, 2017 [86 favorites]
To be fair, they aren't a group with which one should trifle.
Cracker, they ain't nothing to fuk wit.
posted by Talez at 8:44 AM on August 16, 2017 [10 favorites]
Cracker, they ain't nothing to fuk wit.
posted by Talez at 8:44 AM on August 16, 2017 [10 favorites]
The Wu-Tang Klan aren't ones to be messed with.
posted by Artw at 8:44 AM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 8:44 AM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
A conspiracy requires more than one person, but the government doesn't have to charge everyone they allege is involved in the conspiracy, and in most jurisdictions, the conspiracy can involve only one "regular" person, acting along with state agents. Conspiracy charges are sometimes easier, sometimes harder to prove, because they get to notions of intent. Without the conspiracy conviction, the sentencing guidelines will be significantly lower than they would have been. Still, at the federal level, sentencing guidelines are advisory, the judge isn't bound by them (most judges usually do follow them though).
By the way, reading jury questionnaires is always hilarious.
posted by skewed at 8:55 AM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
By the way, reading jury questionnaires is always hilarious.
posted by skewed at 8:55 AM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
I wish those jurors had been accepted.
posted by biggreenplant at 9:13 AM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by biggreenplant at 9:13 AM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
The Wu-Tang Clan, by their own admission, are not the men with whom to fuck.
posted by haileris23 at 9:20 AM on August 16, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by haileris23 at 9:20 AM on August 16, 2017 [15 favorites]
These are amazing. I hope someone was off-record high fiving all these jurors.
posted by Emily's Fist at 9:24 AM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Emily's Fist at 9:24 AM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
The real story here is that they were able to get an impartial jury at all.
posted by Splunge at 9:34 AM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Splunge at 9:34 AM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
You’d have to convince me he was innocent rather than guilty.
...
juror no. 28: I don’t like this person at all. I just can’t understand why he would be so stupid as to take an antibiotic which H.I.V. people need and jack it up five thousand percent. I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there —
the court: Sir, thank you.
juror no. 28: Is he stupid or greedy? I can’t understand.
YES.
posted by nushustu at 9:35 AM on August 16, 2017 [59 favorites]
...
juror no. 28: I don’t like this person at all. I just can’t understand why he would be so stupid as to take an antibiotic which H.I.V. people need and jack it up five thousand percent. I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there —
the court: Sir, thank you.
juror no. 28: Is he stupid or greedy? I can’t understand.
YES.
posted by nushustu at 9:35 AM on August 16, 2017 [59 favorites]
Has he ever claimed that what he was doing was performance art?
posted by acb at 9:37 AM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by acb at 9:37 AM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
juror no. 144: I don’t think I can because he kind of looks like a dick.
posted by Frowner at 9:40 AM on August 16, 2017 [18 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 9:40 AM on August 16, 2017 [18 favorites]
I...seriously can't tell if this is real or not.
posted by redsparkler at 9:43 AM on August 16, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by redsparkler at 9:43 AM on August 16, 2017 [4 favorites]
the court: Would those feelings prevent you from being fair to both sides in this case?
juror no. 70: I can be fair to one side but not the other.
posted by enn at 10:38 AM on August 16, 2017 [12 favorites]
juror no. 70: I can be fair to one side but not the other.
posted by enn at 10:38 AM on August 16, 2017 [12 favorites]
I love this so. much. but I also can't tell if it's real or not, and don't have enough context re Harper's to tell if this is their equivalent of Shouts & Murmurs or whatever.
On the one hand, people are very honest in jury pools, I was actually shocked at the level of forthrightness when I was in one. It wasn't just that people were trying to get out of serving on the jury. I think, once you're in the courtroom and you've listened to the judge's lecture about the importance of civic duty and the greatness of the justice system, you're primed to try to live up to it. People were very honest about the reasons they might not be impartial jury members. So it's not that I'm surprised that people would be so straightforward and blunt. But oh my god, this transcript is so good that I can't quite believe it's real.
posted by yasaman at 10:42 AM on August 16, 2017 [10 favorites]
On the one hand, people are very honest in jury pools, I was actually shocked at the level of forthrightness when I was in one. It wasn't just that people were trying to get out of serving on the jury. I think, once you're in the courtroom and you've listened to the judge's lecture about the importance of civic duty and the greatness of the justice system, you're primed to try to live up to it. People were very honest about the reasons they might not be impartial jury members. So it's not that I'm surprised that people would be so straightforward and blunt. But oh my god, this transcript is so good that I can't quite believe it's real.
posted by yasaman at 10:42 AM on August 16, 2017 [10 favorites]
Voir dire in criminal cases is presumptively public. There are transcripts. So this could be real.
But if it is real, it's also heavily edited. The judge will usually ask you a lot of other stuff and will not easily give up on persuading you to commit to applying the law fairly. There's also usually more attorney by-play. Could be the highlights reel, though, in which case I congratulate them for sticking the landing.
posted by praemunire at 10:57 AM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
But if it is real, it's also heavily edited. The judge will usually ask you a lot of other stuff and will not easily give up on persuading you to commit to applying the law fairly. There's also usually more attorney by-play. Could be the highlights reel, though, in which case I congratulate them for sticking the landing.
posted by praemunire at 10:57 AM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
I'm pretty sure these are all real quotes from the pool and the judge and the attorney (I recognize the "The only thing I'd be impartial about" line, the "He looks like a snake" line, the attorney muttering "So much for the presumption of innocence." The person saying he just looks like a dick was also among my favorites.) We covered this on the local news here in Pittsburgh because yeah, this dude is for sure the most hated man in America, and there were many of us in the newsroom cackling our brains out at the quotes. And yes, it's the highlight reel. Harper's could have slipped in some made up ones, but man, why would you when the real ones are so perfect?
posted by none of these will bring disaster at 10:59 AM on August 16, 2017 [16 favorites]
posted by none of these will bring disaster at 10:59 AM on August 16, 2017 [16 favorites]
I could keep an open mind, but my fists would remain quite closed.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:12 AM on August 16, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:12 AM on August 16, 2017 [6 favorites]
For those who don't want to read through the links -
He was found guilty of:
He was found guilty of:
- securities fraud in connection with MSMB Capital,
- securities fraud in connection with MSMB Healthcare and
- conspiracy to commit securities fraud in connection with Retrophin.
- conspiracy to commit securities fraud in connection with MSMB Capital,
- conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with MSMB Capital,
- conspiracy to commit securities fraud in connection with MSMB Healthcare,
- conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with MSMB Healthcare and
- conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with Retrophin.
There's no way this is real. Most judges would start handing out contempt charges after losing patience with the unpteenth juror to bring up the drug price thing to get out of jury duty.
posted by dr_dank at 11:50 AM on August 16, 2017
posted by dr_dank at 11:50 AM on August 16, 2017
Most judges would start handing out contempt charges after losing patience with the unpteenth juror to bring up the drug price thing to get out of jury duty.
Uh, no, they really wouldn't. Not in grown-up federal court.
posted by praemunire at 12:13 PM on August 16, 2017 [22 favorites]
Uh, no, they really wouldn't. Not in grown-up federal court.
posted by praemunire at 12:13 PM on August 16, 2017 [22 favorites]
I'm pretty sure it's real albeit edited for brevity.
The negative comments built up to the point that Mr. Brafman began to signal to Judge Matsumoto when potential jurors had said enough that he could challenge them for cause, to stop them from going “on a tirade against Mr. Shkreli.”posted by muddgirl at 12:17 PM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
I mean, jurors were excused for other reasons as well. Sounds like the judge called for anyone with a prior opinion to step forward and be dealt with all at once.
posted by muddgirl at 12:20 PM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by muddgirl at 12:20 PM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
This is restoring my faith in humanity a bit.
posted by fshgrl at 12:33 PM on August 16, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 12:33 PM on August 16, 2017 [4 favorites]
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that a considerable element of the Wu-Tang Clan must invariably be taken into account.
posted by sylvanshine at 12:38 PM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by sylvanshine at 12:38 PM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
Dr. Dank have you ever had jury duty? Judges don't just hand out contempt charges like candy, as much as shows like law and order want you to believe that. Last time I had jury duty people said all sorts of crazy shit. The judge was incredibly patient and basically let people say whatever they wanted.
posted by FireFountain at 12:39 PM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by FireFountain at 12:39 PM on August 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
juror no. 125: I’ve read extensively about Martin’s shameful past and his ripping off sick people and it hits close to me. I have a mother with epilepsy, a grandmother with Alzheimer’s, and a brother with multiple sclerosis. I think somebody that’s dealt in those things deserves to go to jail.
the court: Just to be clear, he’s not being charged with anything relating to the pricing of pharmaceuticals.
juror no. 125: I understand that, but I already sense the man is guilty.
I LOVE THIS SO MUCH
posted by joyceanmachine at 1:13 PM on August 16, 2017 [17 favorites]
the court: Just to be clear, he’s not being charged with anything relating to the pricing of pharmaceuticals.
juror no. 125: I understand that, but I already sense the man is guilty.
I LOVE THIS SO MUCH
posted by joyceanmachine at 1:13 PM on August 16, 2017 [17 favorites]
Most judges would start handing out contempt charges after losing patience with the unpteenth juror to bring up the drug price thing to get out of jury duty.
They can't. Or, I suppose technically a judge could, but all that would do is convince other biased jurors to not mention their biases for fear of contempt charges.
Option 1) Commit perjury by lying about not having a bias - serious crime, if it gets noticed.
Option 2) Get contempt-of-court penatly for telling the judge you already hate the defendant.
How many people would confess that they've decided that the defendant is a greedy scumbag who will do anything, including lie, to protect his income?
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:50 PM on August 16, 2017 [3 favorites]
They can't. Or, I suppose technically a judge could, but all that would do is convince other biased jurors to not mention their biases for fear of contempt charges.
Option 1) Commit perjury by lying about not having a bias - serious crime, if it gets noticed.
Option 2) Get contempt-of-court penatly for telling the judge you already hate the defendant.
How many people would confess that they've decided that the defendant is a greedy scumbag who will do anything, including lie, to protect his income?
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:50 PM on August 16, 2017 [3 favorites]
the court: Just to be clear, he’s not being charged with anything relating to the pricing of pharmaceuticals.
Securities fraud for pharma companies has nothing to do with the pricing of pharmaceuticals? Somehow, I doubt that, even if the specific details aren't based on drug prices.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:52 PM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
Securities fraud for pharma companies has nothing to do with the pricing of pharmaceuticals? Somehow, I doubt that, even if the specific details aren't based on drug prices.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:52 PM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
Is Skreli there the whole time to hear them all talk shit about him? If so, even better.
posted by Emmy Rae at 2:01 PM on August 16, 2017
posted by Emmy Rae at 2:01 PM on August 16, 2017
Is Skreli there the whole time to hear them all talk shit about him? If so, even better.
He's a sociopath. Believe me, he doesn't care...
posted by jim in austin at 2:09 PM on August 16, 2017
He's a sociopath. Believe me, he doesn't care...
posted by jim in austin at 2:09 PM on August 16, 2017
He's a sociopath. Believe me, he doesn't care...
I bet he has an ego even if he cares not at all about other people.
posted by Emmy Rae at 2:20 PM on August 16, 2017
I bet he has an ego even if he cares not at all about other people.
posted by Emmy Rae at 2:20 PM on August 16, 2017
(1) Judges are generally very encouraging and protective of jurors. It's hard to get them and hard to keep them. Randomly handing out contempt citations for undesirable jury-box answers would therefore be severely frowned upon by the court as a whole. Honestly, if you were to say you were biased against Shkreli because you hate people with dark hair, and you stuck to that answer under questioning, the judge would most likely dismiss you, might possibly seat you...but almost certainly wouldn't try to impose any sanctions on you, unless you also took a dump in the jury box or something at the same time.
(2) The drug-price bias issue is real and it is credible. Intimidating jurors into not giving true answers about potential bias against the defendant by punishing people who gave that answer would be the most beautiful freaking gift-wrapped issue for appeal a judge could possibly hand a defendant. You'd have to be missing white matter in your brain to do that. I can believe a particularly egregious clown of an elected state-court judge might do it. No federal judge would be that stupid.
posted by praemunire at 2:32 PM on August 16, 2017 [15 favorites]
(2) The drug-price bias issue is real and it is credible. Intimidating jurors into not giving true answers about potential bias against the defendant by punishing people who gave that answer would be the most beautiful freaking gift-wrapped issue for appeal a judge could possibly hand a defendant. You'd have to be missing white matter in your brain to do that. I can believe a particularly egregious clown of an elected state-court judge might do it. No federal judge would be that stupid.
posted by praemunire at 2:32 PM on August 16, 2017 [15 favorites]
i'm a prosecutor and yeah this could easily be a direct transcript. the judge wouldnt bother to talk these people out of this kind of viewpoint because even if he or she could, it would just open the door for defense appeals that he/she let a biased juror sit. and i'm glad he/she didnt, because fuck this motherfucking defendant.
posted by wibari at 3:20 PM on August 16, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by wibari at 3:20 PM on August 16, 2017 [10 favorites]
(assuming of course that the defense had already exhausted its peremptories, but even then, on appeal, he could argue he wasted peremptories on prospective jurors that should have been excused for cause)
posted by wibari at 3:22 PM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by wibari at 3:22 PM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
Shkreli got banned from a music piracy site I was on, then took to twitter begging for an invite to get back in. Some other member sent him an invite, so the site mods banned them both. Fun times.
The mods did offer to let him back if he uploaded his Wu-Tang album, but he refused.
[real]
posted by ryanrs at 3:24 PM on August 16, 2017 [45 favorites]
The mods did offer to let him back if he uploaded his Wu-Tang album, but he refused.
[real]
posted by ryanrs at 3:24 PM on August 16, 2017 [45 favorites]
...losing patience with the unpteenth juror to bring up the drug price thing to get out of jury duty.
You can announce a bias that gets you out of a particular trial, but it won't usually get you out of jury duty, they'll just put you back in the pool and find some other case for you.
In some places being "in the pool" means sitting in a room full of strangers and jigsaw puzzles. Getting called to a case is way more interesting; nobody really wants to sit in the pool for two weeks.
At least, that's been my experience on some non-federal juries.
posted by Western Infidels at 4:15 PM on August 16, 2017 [3 favorites]
You can announce a bias that gets you out of a particular trial, but it won't usually get you out of jury duty, they'll just put you back in the pool and find some other case for you.
In some places being "in the pool" means sitting in a room full of strangers and jigsaw puzzles. Getting called to a case is way more interesting; nobody really wants to sit in the pool for two weeks.
At least, that's been my experience on some non-federal juries.
posted by Western Infidels at 4:15 PM on August 16, 2017 [3 favorites]
So setting aside that it boggles the mind that they were even able to find enough people for a jury that didn't hold a sufficiently negative opinion of him to be disqualified, what happens if literally everyone hates his guts?
posted by juv3nal at 5:06 PM on August 16, 2017
posted by juv3nal at 5:06 PM on August 16, 2017
what happens if literally everyone hates his guts?
I suspect they call for a change of venue, and move the trial to somewhere that he's less well-known. Possibly, the defense will demand that the charges be dropped because he can't get a fair trial, but I don't think the court would accept that. (However, it'll lay the foundation for at least one appeal.)
I doubt it's ever come up before, but courts may be looking at this one and realizing they're going to have problems with high-profile celebrities. In the past, no matter how famous someone was, there were people who either didn't recognize them or didn't care about them. With the internet, though, Shkreli is hardly the most high-profile person who might be facing charges.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:21 PM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
I suspect they call for a change of venue, and move the trial to somewhere that he's less well-known. Possibly, the defense will demand that the charges be dropped because he can't get a fair trial, but I don't think the court would accept that. (However, it'll lay the foundation for at least one appeal.)
I doubt it's ever come up before, but courts may be looking at this one and realizing they're going to have problems with high-profile celebrities. In the past, no matter how famous someone was, there were people who either didn't recognize them or didn't care about them. With the internet, though, Shkreli is hardly the most high-profile person who might be facing charges.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:21 PM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:39 PM on August 16, 2017
posted by tobascodagama at 5:39 PM on August 16, 2017
I don't intend to make light of the jury selection process, but I found reading that kind of cathartic, hearing ordinary people just explicating the egregious terribleness for the record.
posted by mixedmetaphors at 6:33 PM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by mixedmetaphors at 6:33 PM on August 16, 2017 [2 favorites]
FireFountain: Dr. Dank have you ever had jury duty? Judges don't just hand out contempt charges like candy, as much as shows like law and order want you to believe that. Last time I had jury duty people said all sorts of crazy shit. The judge was incredibly patient and basically let people say whatever they wanted.
Out of the two times I was summoned in my adult life, I was selected and paneled on a jury once for a criminal assault trial, not a high profile one like this one with a reviled defendant, but a way to see the inner workings up close. I remember that my judge came down hard on potential jurors who put up lame excuses that they heard the other jurors use versus jurors who had genuine reasons for avoiding service on that case. Being in the presence of someone who could ruin your life with a stroke of a pen has a way of making you take it seriously.
That and , during the trial, the judge would call his own objections when the witnesses were being examined. Not sure if that's typical.
posted by dr_dank at 6:48 PM on August 16, 2017
Out of the two times I was summoned in my adult life, I was selected and paneled on a jury once for a criminal assault trial, not a high profile one like this one with a reviled defendant, but a way to see the inner workings up close. I remember that my judge came down hard on potential jurors who put up lame excuses that they heard the other jurors use versus jurors who had genuine reasons for avoiding service on that case. Being in the presence of someone who could ruin your life with a stroke of a pen has a way of making you take it seriously.
That and , during the trial, the judge would call his own objections when the witnesses were being examined. Not sure if that's typical.
posted by dr_dank at 6:48 PM on August 16, 2017
Dr. Dank have you ever had jury duty? Judges don't just hand out contempt charges like candy
I've been on jury duty and judges don't hand out "excused" like candy either. In my county at least jurors who assert bias get grilled a bit then told to return to the clerk so they can make themselves available for service on a case where they don't have this pre-existing opinion so other people don't see an easy get-out-court free option. This would very much go double for the flippant style "disrespected Wu-Tang Clan" excuses.
I'm perfectly willing to believe these are real statements heavily edited and abridged to cut out the boring stuff, but no way does it jibe with my experience if you take them literally as written.
posted by mark k at 6:53 PM on August 16, 2017 [3 favorites]
I've been on jury duty and judges don't hand out "excused" like candy either. In my county at least jurors who assert bias get grilled a bit then told to return to the clerk so they can make themselves available for service on a case where they don't have this pre-existing opinion so other people don't see an easy get-out-court free option. This would very much go double for the flippant style "disrespected Wu-Tang Clan" excuses.
I'm perfectly willing to believe these are real statements heavily edited and abridged to cut out the boring stuff, but no way does it jibe with my experience if you take them literally as written.
posted by mark k at 6:53 PM on August 16, 2017 [3 favorites]
I've had jury duty in SF & Brooklyn and in both cases if you were excused, you did not return to the pool regardless of reason. Maybe it's just cause there are huge pools, but we go for one day & we're excused for eight years.
posted by dame at 7:31 PM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by dame at 7:31 PM on August 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
The whole thing reads like a Pawnee town hall meeting from Parks and Recreation.
posted by bibliowench at 9:53 PM on August 16, 2017 [16 favorites]
posted by bibliowench at 9:53 PM on August 16, 2017 [16 favorites]
This is not regular ol' jury duty where you roll up to the county courthouse and listen to two lawyers argue for an afternoon about damages in a car crash (the first time I was on a jury), or about a slip-and-fall in a laundromat (the second time I was called for jury duty, but ended up not being selected) or about a slip-and-fall in a grocery (when my friend ended up on a jury).
Shkreli was having a FIVE WEEK TRIAL in FEDERAL COURT. That's Serious Shit. Plus, judges in federal court have, until Trump began his shenanigans, generally been super-serious, super-professional, super-successful people for whom this is not just, like, how they get to Friday. That's way too common at the state and local levels. Instead, the federal judiciary is largely made out of people who finally have their dream job. And a high-profile, media-charged case like this is Career-Defining Stuff That Goes Into Your Obituary, and which could be ruined by letting on an obviously biased, unfit juror. Not only could it be grounds for a mistrial, but it could result in a serious smacking from the appeals court.
So yeah, this rings absolutely true to me. I'm just amused that Shrkeli is SUCH A FUCKING DICK IN PERSON that it overcame the intimidation that most people feel in federal court with the wood paneling and the judge in black robes peering down at you and the lawyers in their suits and the stenographer.
posted by joyceanmachine at 7:46 AM on August 17, 2017 [8 favorites]
Shkreli was having a FIVE WEEK TRIAL in FEDERAL COURT. That's Serious Shit. Plus, judges in federal court have, until Trump began his shenanigans, generally been super-serious, super-professional, super-successful people for whom this is not just, like, how they get to Friday. That's way too common at the state and local levels. Instead, the federal judiciary is largely made out of people who finally have their dream job. And a high-profile, media-charged case like this is Career-Defining Stuff That Goes Into Your Obituary, and which could be ruined by letting on an obviously biased, unfit juror. Not only could it be grounds for a mistrial, but it could result in a serious smacking from the appeals court.
So yeah, this rings absolutely true to me. I'm just amused that Shrkeli is SUCH A FUCKING DICK IN PERSON that it overcame the intimidation that most people feel in federal court with the wood paneling and the judge in black robes peering down at you and the lawyers in their suits and the stenographer.
posted by joyceanmachine at 7:46 AM on August 17, 2017 [8 favorites]
So is this guy looking at jail time or some kind of easily payable fine?
posted by The Whelk at 8:29 AM on August 17, 2017
posted by The Whelk at 8:29 AM on August 17, 2017
So is this guy looking at jail time or some kind of easily payable fine?
The latter would almost certainly be part of it, but there'll likely be some kind of concurrently-served slap-on-the-wrist all-expenses-paid few-weeks-long vacation in the mix, too. Google sez the maximum is five years (plus probation) and five million dollars (plus restitution), both of which seem pretty paltry.
You may recall that Martha Stewart, who was convicted of more than Shkrelli was, had to pay an absolutely whopping $30,000 fine (and give up ~$50,000 gained through her crimes) and spent five months playing volleyball with Squeaky Fromme. Then again, Martha Stewart was charming and likeable and a bunch of other people's jobs depended on her freedom; Shkrelli might well get the book lodged in his face.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:58 AM on August 17, 2017 [1 favorite]
The latter would almost certainly be part of it, but there'll likely be some kind of concurrently-served slap-on-the-wrist all-expenses-paid few-weeks-long vacation in the mix, too. Google sez the maximum is five years (plus probation) and five million dollars (plus restitution), both of which seem pretty paltry.
You may recall that Martha Stewart, who was convicted of more than Shkrelli was, had to pay an absolutely whopping $30,000 fine (and give up ~$50,000 gained through her crimes) and spent five months playing volleyball with Squeaky Fromme. Then again, Martha Stewart was charming and likeable and a bunch of other people's jobs depended on her freedom; Shkrelli might well get the book lodged in his face.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:58 AM on August 17, 2017 [1 favorite]
Man I don't know why if you're charged with something like this you aren't barred from working in the industry for like 10 years or something
posted by The Whelk at 11:05 AM on August 17, 2017
posted by The Whelk at 11:05 AM on August 17, 2017
Well, he'll lose his FINRA registration for (I think) ten years.
This doesn't automatically stop him from being a corporate officer (a large company wouldn't hire him because you couldn't get D&O insurance on him), and he seems to have had a very unimpressive career in securities, so I'm not sure how it will impact his employment choices going forward, but he will be effectively barred from working in securities.
posted by praemunire at 12:38 PM on August 17, 2017
This doesn't automatically stop him from being a corporate officer (a large company wouldn't hire him because you couldn't get D&O insurance on him), and he seems to have had a very unimpressive career in securities, so I'm not sure how it will impact his employment choices going forward, but he will be effectively barred from working in securities.
posted by praemunire at 12:38 PM on August 17, 2017
So yeah, this rings absolutely true to me.
I have trouble squaring the super-serious image of judges you paint, with the a[parent indifference to flippant jokes in their courtroom that is in the transcript (unless you assume it's heavily edited in a way that changes the tone.)
posted by mark k at 10:22 PM on August 17, 2017
I have trouble squaring the super-serious image of judges you paint, with the a[parent indifference to flippant jokes in their courtroom that is in the transcript (unless you assume it's heavily edited in a way that changes the tone.)
posted by mark k at 10:22 PM on August 17, 2017
There is no reason for a judge to get into squabbles with potential jurors over tone, especially when it is obvious the juror won't be seated.
You may have been on jury duty a couple of times, but there is, I suspect, more than one person posting in this thread who has actually clerked for a federal judge, watched them do voir dire during trials multiple times, and heard them talk about it afterwards.
posted by praemunire at 11:48 PM on August 17, 2017 [2 favorites]
You may have been on jury duty a couple of times, but there is, I suspect, more than one person posting in this thread who has actually clerked for a federal judge, watched them do voir dire during trials multiple times, and heard them talk about it afterwards.
posted by praemunire at 11:48 PM on August 17, 2017 [2 favorites]
Sentenced to the 36 chambers of death kid, one of them being that one where Mef just keeps feeding you and feeding you and feeding you.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:04 AM on August 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:04 AM on August 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
I have trouble squaring the super-serious image of judges you paint, with the a[parent indifference to flippant jokes in their courtroom that is in the transcript (unless you assume it's heavily edited in a way that changes the tone.)
The article I linked to in a prior comment gives more context. Apparently the defense attorneys were hand-signalling when they were prepared to ask for the jurist to be excused for cause, so that likely accounts for the indifferent tone from the judge followed by a quick dismissal.
posted by muddgirl at 3:14 AM on August 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
The article I linked to in a prior comment gives more context. Apparently the defense attorneys were hand-signalling when they were prepared to ask for the jurist to be excused for cause, so that likely accounts for the indifferent tone from the judge followed by a quick dismissal.
posted by muddgirl at 3:14 AM on August 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older How one man built a $51m theme park for his... | Socialists, Tenant Farmers, Native And African... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:32 AM on August 16, 2017 [8 favorites]