In the original version of this Chronicle story (since revised) about Jeff Skilling’s upcoming testimony in the Lay-Skilling trial and the importance of witness preparation, Austin-based jury consultant Doug Keene is quoted as making the following observation about Martha Stewart:
In contrast, Martha Stewart did herself no favors during testimony in her 2004 trial, in which she was widely seen as being less than contrite.
“She came across as someone who would lie even on a very small matter out of arrogance, who made jurors say, ‘Yeah, what I’ve heard about her is probably true,'” Keene said. “Arrogance is one character trait that a white-collar defendant can’t leave jurors with.”
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
Except when you realize that Stewart elected not to testify during her criminal trial.
But then, isn’t the point that Keene is really making is that all high-profile executives of big companies are arrogant? Right?
So it goes in the wacky world of criminalizing businesspersons in America.
arrogant
TK,
I only ever wanted to read one brilliant law review article and that was whether arrogance was character under FREVi 404(a) or whether proof arrogance is admissible to show “Evidence of other … wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident
I believe that arrogance is admissible…for example, in Enron, it shows that all the witnesses spoke in “code” out of plan, design, and intent. The arrogance of Lay and Skilling proves absence or mistake or accident on the part of their underling co-conspirators