Day 1 continued

Jury selection continued this afternoon in a grueling 5 hour session. 

The afternoon began with both sides reading their lists of potential witnesses.  Notably absent from the defense's list was Nacchio himself.  Mr. Nacchio was very attentive and engaged throughout the day, even during the long hours in the late afternoon and early evening.  He took notes and paid close attention to the answers from the prospective jurors.  He also resumed the practice of approaching the bench with his attorneys to hear jurors describe their knowledge of the case from the media.  

Judge Nottingham continued with his strict style, and also continued with some humorous comments.  One of the funniest exchanges came when lead defense attorney Herbert Stern complained for probably the 5th time that the jurors' answers were not loud enough for him to hear.  Judge Nottingham suggested that Stern join lead prosecutor Stricklin at the prosecution table.  Neither attorney looked pleased with the idea, and Mr. Stricklin actually objected.  In what is becoming characteristic for Judge Nottingham, he quipped, "It was just an idea." 

Judge Nottingham was not all laughs, however.  For the second time today he admonished the media for approaching potential jurors before they had been excused.  In addition, his patience with Mr. Stern was seeming to wear thin, as the defense was raising nearly all objections and drawing out the sidebar conversations.  It will be interesting to see if the defense maintains this strategy of fighting for every inch; especially considering that Judge Nottingham has not shown any inclination that he will treat such tactics favorably.

Check back tomorrow for our continuing coverage of this trial.

Comments

[Allan Horwich]

I had seen some press comment to the effect that the defendant would argue there were reasons for his sales other than inside information. It would appear from the absence of his name from the witness list that the defense is not going to argue that there was a reason for the sale other than his analysis of the stock, as I would expect the defendant himself would have to offer that explanation.

I raise this because of the legal question of whether one can still defend an insider trading charge by claiming that any inside information was not "used" to make the decision to trade (e.g., US v. Smith) if one of the affirmative defenses in rule 10b5-1 was not satisfied.