Talk About Tennis 2.0

Today in Big Pharma

The replies to that tweet show just how ignorant people are to how the law and legal system works. That is a great play by his lawyer's and it does not smack of desperation to file such a motion, nowhere near. I love the high and mighty who if they had anything charged against them, their friends, or their family, would want every one of these things explored and more to get something reduced or dismissed, but let it be someone famous and they want a Hollywood about-face and full confession captured on tape.

I feel that way about the implied criticism of the Maxwell jury. This is not a TV show. It would've been easy to go in, get fed on the court's dime, and come back with a verdict. I don't know if Federal juries have to be unanimous but this jury is taking its time and that, to me, is a good thing.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 11:01 pm I feel that way about the implied criticism of the Maxwell jury. This is not a TV show. It would've been easy to go in, get fed on the court's dime, and come back with a verdict. I don't know if Federal juries have to be unanimous but this jury is taking its time and that, to me, is a good thing.

Yes, federal juries must be unanimous, even in civil cases.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 11:01 pm I feel that way about the implied criticism of the Maxwell jury. This is not a TV show. It would've been easy to go in, get fed on the court's dime, and come back with a verdict. I don't know if Federal juries have to be unanimous but this jury is taking its time and that, to me, is a good thing.

I beg to differ. It IS a TV show.
Every high profile trial in the U.S. is a TV show.
The lawyers - and even the judges - play to the cameras.
I suppose the O.J. trial really started this disturbing trend, and it will sadly continue for a long time to come in the celebrity obsessed U.S.A.

On the other topic, guilty is guilty, regardless of irrelevant details like jurisdiction. Allowing arguments like this is precisely why the law is so often referred to as being "an ass".
If a lawyer finds a loophole to exploit in order to get his or her GUILTY client off, the lawyer may be referred to as 'a good lawyer' - but in my book, they are bad human beings.
Only RELEVANT facts should be considered in determining guilt or innocence.
Guilty is guilty. Period.

The verdict(s) in the Maxwell trial show why Tiny is filing his frivolous suits outside of NYC. We ain't stupid.

There is other Maxwell/Epstein news that's not directly related to the just completed trial.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:49 pm

I'd say it's pretty obvious that he's sweating now...

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes found mostly guilty in epic fraud trial
The three-month trial featured intense lawyering and testimony, including from Holmes herself — possibly to her detriment with the 12-person jury.

MATTHEW RENDA / January 3, 2022


FILE- In this Nov. 2, 2015, file photo, Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Theranos, speaks at the Fortune Global Forum in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — Disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes faces decades in prison after a federal jury on Monday found her guilty on 8 of 11 counts of fraud and criminal conspiracy, bringing to an end a trial filled with technical details that began in early September.

This is a developing story.

https://www.courthousenews.com/theranos ... aud-trial/

Elizabeth Holmes found guilty of four counts of fraud.

By Erin Griffith and Erin Woo
Jan. 3, 2022, 7:20 p.m. ET

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of the failed blood testing start-up Theranos, was found guilty of four charges of fraud on Monday, in a case that came to symbolize the pitfalls of Silicon Valley’s culture of hustle, hype and greed.

Ms. Holmes was the most prominent tech executive to field fraud accusations in a generation of high-flying, money-losing start-ups. A jury of eight men and four women took 50 hours to reach a verdict, convicting her of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. She was found not guilty on four other counts.

Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, terms that are likely to be served concurrently. Ms. Holmes is expected to appeal.

The verdict stands out for its rarity. Few technology executives are charged with fraud and even fewer are convicted. If sentenced to prison, Ms. Holmes would be the most notable female executive to serve time since Martha Stewart did in 2004 after lying to investigators about a stock sale. And Theranos, which dissolved in 2018, is likely to stand as a warning to other Silicon Valley start-ups that stretch the truth to score funding and business deals.

The verdict suggested that jurors believed the evidence presented by prosecutors that showed Ms. Holmes lied about Theranos’s technology to get money and fame. They were not swayed by her defense of blaming others for Theranos’s problems and accusing her co-conspirator, Ramesh Balwani, the company’s chief operating officer and her former boyfriend, of abusing her.

The guilty verdict arrived in a frenzied period for the tech industry, with investors fighting to get into hot deals and often ignoring potential red flags about the companies they were putting money into. Some have warned that more Theranos-like disasters loom.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/tech ... 2afbcd939d