Martha Stewart wasn’t actually convicted for insider trading, the judge threw that charge (securities fraud) out saying that no competent juror could find her guilty of it.
I can’t remember if the true basis for dismissing the charge was lack of evidence or a judicial determination, but if it was the latter that’s pretty damning (that investigators didn’t have a case); as a determination of innocence presumes all evidence is factual, to a reasonable extent, and a determination of no crime having taken place does the same in concluding that the evidence describes no crime relating to the dismissed charge having taken place. A kind of legal non-sequitor.
Martha Stewart wasn’t actually convicted for insider trading, the judge threw that charge (securities fraud) out saying that no competent juror could find her guilty of it.
I can’t remember if the true basis for dismissing the charge was lack of evidence or a judicial determination, but if it was the latter that’s pretty damning (that investigators didn’t have a case); as a determination of innocence presumes all evidence is factual, to a reasonable extent, and a determination of no crime having taken place does the same in concluding that the evidence describes no crime relating to the dismissed charge having taken place. A kind of legal non-sequitor.