Corporate Governance

US v. Nacchio (En Banc): The Defendant Speaks (In A Churlish Matter)

By J. Robert Brown

In a prior post, we noted that the Government was a bit churlish for throwing back at Herbert Stern, counsel for Defendant Joe Nacchio, quotes from one of his publications suggesting that he understood the need to request a hearing.  Likewise the Defendant was churlish in taking a shot at the trial judge, Judge Nottingham. 

As the brief noted:  "Every defendant has a right to present a defense, and the concerns about fairness are heightened all the more when these rulings were issued by a judge who said he could ?see no reason why this man who grew up, the son of Italian immigrants ? in New Jersey and New York, should ever have come out here to Colorado.? APP-1324. Justice demands that this conviction be reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge."  In other words, the implication is that Judge Nottingham excluded Fischel because of personal bias against Nacchio. 

Judge Nottingham and Herbert Stern had considerable conflict, something that started at the beginning of the trial.  But it was between them and appeared to have little to do with Nacchio.  The comment in the brief was churlish. 

Full post as published by The Race to the Bottom on September 09, 2008 (boomark / email).