Quote:
Originally Posted by pghduilaw
I am aware of such prosecutions. On example might be insider trading. In some cases, there might be direct evidence (ie a witness who says trader x paid me for this inside infor). However, in some cases, all the evidence might be circumstantial (ie timing of trades, manner of trades etc). The prosecution must use that circumstantial evidence surrounding the trades to convince a fact finder that the trader must have had certain info to trade in that manner. (In a way, factually quite similar to this scenario).
Those cases are extremely difficult to prosecute and generally involve very large sums of $$.
Not an expert but I thought the issue with DNA in the Simpson case was chain of custody, not technological intelligence of the jurors, am I remembering this wrong?
I would take issue with comparing insider trading evidence with poker hand evidence. Are you suggesting that the evidence of insider trading is not mathematically on a much higher level than the few hands of evidence availabe here?
Said different, with so few hands, would a case with the same number of suspect trades be pursued if the money were big enough otherwise?