Originally posted by aloofman+Jun 18 2005, 01:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aloofman @ Jun 18 2005, 01:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Jun 18 2005, 02:23 AM
When the "process" interferes with the obvious, the courts no longer serve the needs of the people.
[post=321795]Quoted post[/post]
99% of the time that "process" serves the needs of the people. If you think that people should still be convicted when the process fails, then I'm sure there are some dictatorships that could serve your needs better.
The real issue is why a judge still can't get jury instructions right, not whether a destroyed company has to pay a fine.
[post=321873]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]The real problem in this case is not "due process." The real problem is that the case was not presented in a way that the jurors simply had to decide "did Andersen have any complicity in the creative bookkeeping, thereby knowingly and willfully causing financial ruin for those with a financial stake in the company?" The lawyers for both prosecution and defense probably need to face ethics charges.