The Wall Street Journal has a preview, with a focus on the prosecutors, of the "insider trading" trial of money manager Raj Rajaratnam. It includes this passage:
Prosecutors have faced criticism for their handling of the Galleon case and investigation, which could introduce tension in the courtroom between the two sides.
John Dowd, Mr. Rajaratnam's lead attorney, attempted to persuade the judge overseeing the Galleon case to throw out wiretap evidence, asserting the government left out details about a cooperating witness's history and was dishonest when applying to a judge for the wiretaps.
U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell, who is overseeing the case, criticized the government for "glaring" omissions in its applications but allowed the recordings to be admitted as evidence.
It's funny how the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times editorial board, ever at the ramparts when it comes to inappropriate wiretapping of terrorists and ready to rush to the defense of the exclusionary rule in cases involving drug dealers, are nowhere to be found when it comes to the case of Mr. Rajaratnam.
Doubts about the government's tactics against Mr. Rajaratnam have been expressed here from the outset. It's a double standard: Mr. Rajaratnam breaks (or allegedly breaks) the rules on insider trading, and he faces getting thrown in jail, while the prosecutors break the rules on wiretapping (or at least have "glaring" omissions in their applications) and they get them admitted as evidence.
