Quattrone’s Defense is Weakened
Washington Post: Witness Says He Informed Quattrone of Subpoenas . Central to the case is what Quattrone knew about government subpoenas when he forwarded an e-mail message from an associate encouraging employees under him to “clean up their files” on Dec. 5, 2000. CSFB policy called for employees to periodically destroy notes and other draft papers when deals had been completed, except if they had been notified that investigators and lawyers were seeking documents. Brodsky, then CSFB’s top lawyer in the Americas, said he told Quattrone on Dec. 3 that a grand jury had issued subpoenas.
This is very bad news for Quattrone’s case. The testimony from Brodsky, the head of legal affairs at Credit Suisse First Boston, will lend more credence to the prosecution’s case than we learned in the opening arguments.
The defense’s opening argument had Quattrone receiving a warning e-mail on Dec. 5, 2000 — one of hundreds that day, the defense noted. Now it turns out he was warned two days earlier.
Let’s see what the cross-examination turns up. But reasonable doubt may be getting more difficult.
Posted by: drinkof on October 4, 2003 10:37 AM
Here’s an analogy, and an inquiry regarding normal investigative procedure. NPR (via Nina Totenberg) reported that the Dept of Justice, at the request of the White House, delayed the delivery (and thus effective date) of the ‘save all your documents’ letter to the WH by 24 hours. I’ve never heard of, actually, any similar situation in an investigation, has anyone else? Seems to violate Investigation 101, doesn’t it?
If true, won’t the identity of the person who asked and the person who said yes be interesting? And potentially embarrassing? There doesn’t seem to be a defensible motive I can think of that would even make sense, is there?
Posted by: professor rat on October 4, 2003 12:29 PM
While we’re off the subject…you know the white hats getting perp walked now like Lamo and that security dude,Dan?
Well what about these criminals getting fake ID’s?
Tests we have performed over the past 3 years demonstrate that counterfeit identification documents can be used to
This entry was posted in SiliconValley.com Archives
. Bookmark the permalink