Header graphic for print
The Corporate Observer A Publication by Attorneys Devoted to Protecting Consumer Rights

To Testify or Not to Testify: Raj Rajaratnam Faces the Question of His Life

Posted in In the Courts

The government has rested.  The jury has heard scores of taped conversations and a mountain of documents and other materials have been presented to the jury and introduced into evidence.  Unlike most cases involving fraud and financial misconduct, where juries must piece together varying degrees of circumstantial evidence gleaned from documents alone, here the jury has direct evidence.  Raj’s voice: kidding, cajoling, prodding, and insisting on obtaining inside information from his “friends” on the inside.  All told according to the FBI agent who was the last witness to testify for the government, Raj earned over $60 million from trading on inside information.  That’s a big number.   It doesn’t look good for this … well … corpulent and rather cuddly bad guy.

What does he do?

On Monday, it’s the defense’s turn.  Mr. Dowd, Raj’s lead counsel, can stand and with as much righteous indignation as he can muster, state in a loud clear voice, “the defense calls NO witnesses”.  That’s what Barry Bond’s high-priced team has chosen.  The bet underlying that tactic is that the jury is skeptical of the government’s case, and the defense argues that under the Constitution, yes that Constitution, a citizen ACCUSED of a crime need not prove their innocence.  All they must do is demonstrate that the government failed to meet its burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Hmmmm.  From what I’ve seen, that’s a non-starter here. The government’s case is just too strong.  “What’s the best strategy then, Mr. Former Federal Prosecutor?”

I’d say you have to put Raj on the stand.  First, he’s hardly a threatening presence.  He’s a big teddy bear.  He is smooth and persuasive.  It only takes one juror to be seduced by his charm to keep him from what will more than likely be a long stay for him at a federal penitentiary.   Second, remember he is the “tippee” not the “tipper”.  What?   Yes.  The tipper is the “insider”.  In this case there were many.  Most notably was the Director of Goldman Sachs who literally called Raj from outside the Board Room with inside information on proposed mergers.  Raj can try to argue that all these “tippers” are the real guilty parties and they are merely trying to save their skin by implicating Mr. Rajaratnam.

Will that work?  Probably not.  And as I’ve written before his best shot is going to be to appeal the court’s decision allowing the taped conversations into evidence despite rather sloppy, if not worse, conduct on behalf of the government in seeking the warrants necessary to wiretap conversations. 

 We’ll know come Monday. 

  • Bobby Peters

    There are two things in life a person must do alone, die and testify. Once dead, you are dead. Once on the stand, your all alone without a lifeline, and you can’t call a friend or stop the proceedings to get legal assistance on how to form your answer. As a Judge I have seen many cases lost with good people making bad attempts to sway jurors to the facts as they see them. There are many factors to consider on whether or not a defendant should testify. A salesman will believe he can sell anything, including his story to jurors; he only needs one sale out of twelve for a hung jury. But you cant under estimate the common sense of those common folks. Thanks for the article, it was interesting. Bobby Peters, Superior Court.