More handpicked essays just for you.
Case study martha stewart and insider trading
Case study martha stewart and insider trading
What company stocks was in the middle of Martha stewart's inside traders scandal
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The basis of American democracy enables people to have a voice in the government while providing equal protection under the law for everyone. Furthermore, the judiciary system is in place to ensure that justice is served appropriately. Unfortunately, conflicts arise when people in positions of power conduct themselves immorally or do not follow the law by lying or mishandling evidence. To protect individuals from harm or persecution in cases such as these, judges, administrators, or elected officials may be charged with obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is extremely difficult to detect, but history has proven that anyone, ranging from people as high-profile as Martha Stewart or Bill Clinton to fictional characters such as Huck …show more content…
Finn, is capable of either committing the act of obstructing justice or being charged with the crime. When a person is charged with the crime of obstruction of justice, he or she is convicted of intending to interfere with an official proceeding by committing acts such as destroying evidence or impeding the duties of court officials or jurors. Furthermore, a person convicted of obstruction of justice must have been aware that a proceeding was pending at the time, and the defendant must have knowledge of a connection between the alleged crime and the proceeding (“Obstruction of Justice.”). In short, a person is not able to accidentally obstruct justice; if a person commits the crime, he or she is aware of a nexus between their actions and a court case. A famous example of obstruction of justice is the indictment of Martha Stewart for “conspiracy to obstruct justice” in 2004 (Reynolds).
Initially, Stewart was accused of participating in insider trading and securities fraud, but those accusations soon evolved into obstruction of justice when the government uncovered that she lied to the FBI about her knowledge of a particular trade involving ImClone. Faneuil, Stewart’s stockbroker’s assistant, revealed to Stewart that Sam Waksal, ImClone CEO, was frantically selling his shares in the company. Alarmed, Stewart quickly sold her 4,000 shares. Although the sale may have been unethical, everything was perfectly legal with the exception that Stewart lied about her motives for conducting the trade (Reynolds). Stewart was fully aware that she was interfering with the government’s case against her; therefore, the decision to charge her with obstruction of justice was easily …show more content…
justified. An additional case involving obstruction of justice is Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
After the news broke of Clinton’s extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton was asked to testify about the case. Clinton lied about his affair under oath, and he ultimately paid the consequences. He was impeached on counts of “perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power”, but he was never removed from office (“President Clinton Impeached”). Clinton was the first president to face impeachment since Andrew Johnson in 1868 and he was the second president ever to face impeachment, so the issue was not taken lightly. The president was ultimately acquitted of his charges, but the Senate’s votes were split on the charge of obstruction of justice. By impeaching the president for obstructing justice, Congress demonstrated that nobody, including the President of the United States, is above the
law. In Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck witnessed several illegal acts ranging from robbery to murder scenes, but above all, Huck helped Jim, a runaway slave, stay hidden. By modern standards, Huck would be guilty of obstruction of justice because he was aware that what he was doing was illegal, and he was interfering with the government’s control over the situation. However, the issue is more complex because in this case, what is morally correct is illegal. Technically speaking, “any attempt to hinder the discovery… of anyone who has committed a crime” may constitute obstruction of justice, and that is exactly what Huck did (Axelrod). At the time, slaves were considered property and runaways had to be returned to their owners as soon as they were captured. Punishments for assisting runaway slaves were outlined in the Fugitive Slave Act, and included fines, jail time, and even execution in certain cases. In spite of the possible legal repercussions he could have faced, Huck helped Jim remain in hiding, and therefore obstructed justice. Though he obstructed justice, Huck took the moral high ground and was much less deserving of punishment than Martha Stewart or Bill Clinton. Throughout Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain used his characters to display the prevalence of hypocrisy in the world. Although the purpose of the law is preserve freedom and enforce rights, slavery was protected under the law. People from all walks to life, including Martha Stewart, Bill Clinton, and even Huck Finn are capable of being charged with obstruction of justice. However, in some cases, as seen with Huck Finn, the obstruction is justifiable on moral grounds.
Lewinsky was an unpaid intern and later became a paid staffer at the White House. In the beginning of the case, Monica Lewinsky did deny having sexual relations with the President. Starr then found tape recordings of telephone conversations of Lewinsky describing her relationship with the president. Clinton tried to cover up the affair by having his advisor Vernon Jordan to have Lewinsky lie or having a job outside Washington.
Before Clinton was elected President he had an encounter with Paula Jones in a hotel room. After Clinton took office Paula Jones then sued Clinton for sexual harassment. A short time later Monica Lewinsky began her intern at the White House. Clinton and Lewinsky began a sexual relationship. Judge Kenneth Starr was the investigator of Whitewater. President Clinton denied any sexual relations with Lewinsky. On October 8, 1998, the House would vote to have an impeachment and won. Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction to justice. Bill Clinton would end up not getting kicked out of office by senate.
“Corruption is like a ball of snow, once it’s set a rolling it must increase (Charles Caleb Colton).” Colton describes that once corruption has begun, it is difficult to stop. Corruption has existed in this country, let alone this very planet, since the beginning of time. With corruption involves: money, power, and favoritism. Many people argue today that racism is still a major problem to overcome in today’s legal system. American author (and local Chicago resident) Steve Bogira jumps into the center of the United States justice system and tells the story of what happens in a typical year for the Cook Country Criminal Courthouse, which has been noted as one of the most hectic and busiest felony courthouses in the entire country. After getting permission from one of the courthouse judges’ (Judge Locallo) he was allowed to venture in and get eyewitness accounts of what the American Legal System is and how it operates. Not only did he get access to the courtroom but: Locallo’s chambers, staff, even his own home. In this book we get to read first hand account of how America handles issues like: how money and power play in the court, the favoritism towards certain ethnic groups, and the façade that has to be put on by both the defendants and Cook County Workers,
None of this would have been much of a problem had Monica Lewinsky had not told Tripp that Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan instructed her to lie about the affair with Clinton. Supposedly Linda Tripp has Monica alleging this on tape. These tapes if finally released to the public should prove to be quite titillating, Monica Lewinsky claims that Clinton was very fond of oral sex and that she it to him on a number of occasions. It has been alleged by various news organizations that a secret service agent actually caught Lewinsky and Clinton in the act. It has also been alleged that Monica Lewinsky has a blue semen stained dress which, if true, would be direct DNA evidence of the affair. But it still would not prove obstruction of justice. If that was ever proven it could be an impeachable offence, a sexual scandal probably would not lead to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. If not then it will simply be a source of Bill Clinton jokes.
On December 28, the day after Stewart sold her shares, ImClone publicly announced that the Erbitux application had been rejected. Shortly after ImClone's announcement, the Securities and Exchange Commission "SEC" and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York launched investigations into trading in ImClone stock in advance of the announcement to the public of the news about Erbitux. During the investigation, each defendant was questioned twice. Martha Stewart was interviewed at the office of the United States Attorney on February 4, 2002 and by telephone on April 10, 2002. Among those present during Stewart's interviews were Special Agent Catherine Farmer of the FBI and Helene Glotzer, a lawyer with the SEC's Enforcement Division.
On August 17, 1998, exactly one year after making the statement above, President Bill Clinton prepared to deliver a speech concerning a scandal that had gripped the nation for months. It is needless to say that this was an important moment during the Clinton administration. After accusations of sexual harassment, Clinton addressed the nation and admitted to having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In this critical speech Clinton set out to admit to wrong-doings, provide a few reasons for his action, and ultimately persuade the audience into moving on and forgetting the scandal. This essay will break down his speech into sections and examine the most and least effective strategies that Clinton employed and how well he executed those strategies. This is an interesting speech given under rare circumstances. Not since Watergate had an American president been under such harsh moral criticism from the public. By looking critically at this speech we are able to gain valuable insight into Clinton's motives.
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
Out of all of the current presidents in our time the most interesting president to explore was President Richard Nixon and out of all of them he was the only one in term to resign. That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be executed to the fullest extent of their nature. His poor choices and decisions led to his resignation. Although he did have some good qualities in helping the U.S. the bad however override the good. In the CRS (Congressional Research Service) It states: “ Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of Congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud The United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). Simple perjury in a federal investigation or judicial proceedings carries an extensive fine and up to 5 years in prison.” This was the first article president Richard M. Nixon was charged with by the House of Judiciary Committee. The vote was 27 to 1 for Nixon to be charged with the first article of impeachment, which was Obstruction of Justice. In denial of his liability in part taking in the Watergate scandal by saying he wasn't involved in the scandal He pointed finger at others that were involved in the break-in. However, tapes were found of conversations that proved his involvement and he was going to be impeached. Before he was charged, he made a resignat...
In more extreme cases, officers may obstruct justice and lie under the oath to save themselves or a fellow officer from discipline and prosecution (Holbert & Rosa 69). Despite police not taking fault in their actions and going against the oath, it gives government official a bad reputation in the moto of protecting and serving their
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
In August 17, 1998 Clinton, after seven months of silence, Clinton finally admitted that he had an inappropriate relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. In a four-minute apologia speech, Clinton formally apologized for his personal misconduct, and at the same time, asked for support from the people to stop the lawsuit and accusations that came from the scandal. Clinton carefully and skillfully made use of logos and pathos throughout the speech to convince the audience that there were bigger issues at hand than his personal dealings with Monica Lewinsky. Therefore, he believed that this matter should no longer be the focus point of the nation, and it was about time to move on.
The laundry list of crimes Americans have suffered at the hands of their own criminal justice system is because they don’t have the right tools to fight back against those that have the ability to sway litigation.
Only three times in the 226 year history of the office of the President of the United States has the idea of impeachment reared its head. Only twice has a president been impeached, and only one president has been driven out of office due to possible high crimes and misdemeanors. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton both were impeached by the House of Representatives, and faced trial in the Senate. Both presidents were acquitted of their supposed transgressions, and were allowed to remain in office. Richard Nixon, despite never experiencing impeachment, vacated his office due to increasing pressure to resign and spare the Senate from going through the process due to his obvious guilt. Nixon was actually in violation of his duties as President, but Clinton and Johnson were impeached by political rivals. Nixon’s actions were considered in such grave violation of the Constitution, that he did not keep his office, whereas Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton stayed.
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor
Stewart did afterward was illegal. She lied about knowing the fact that the Waksal family was selling their shares and falsified the phone message log before having second thoughts and had her assistance restored the original message. Furthermore, she jointly collaborated an untruthful story with her broker to indicate that there was a stop order to sell the stock at $60 per share (SEC, 2003).