This bigwig Wall Street trader (Raj Rajaratnam) was convicted for insider trading in a landmark case Wednesday. I heard someone on NPR say that the guy had testified against himself again and again in the courtroom, since wire recordings of his voice basically had him describing and admitting to the crimes right there on audiotape. But is this really fair? I thought that nobody could be compelled to serve as a witness against himself. Isn’t that right? The fifth amendment to the US constitution says: blah, blah, blah, “nor shall (the defendant) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, yadda, yadda. And didn’t that guy on NPR fully admit that through the wire recordings, that’s exactly what he ended up doing: being a witness against himself? So obviously they should have to let him go. Unless they could put like some kind of effects on his voice on the wire recording so you couldn’t tell it was him. Then they could say it’s not the same thing as him testifying against himself, and it would be legal, right? Or maybe if they used the wire recordings like they are, they should put a fake mustache and glasses on the defendant so we won’t know it’s the same guy, and then he couldn’t say he’s being forced to testify against himself. Right? That’s what I would do.
Here’s the story:
