Tag: Joe Nacchio

A federal judge in Denver today ordered the Government to transport former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio, serving a 6 year sentence at Minersville, PA, to court in Denver to appear at a hearing to decide if his request to waive his appearance at his re-sentencing is knowing and voluntary. The Court of Appeals previously ruled Nacchio's sentence was not properly calculated and he should be resentenced to less time.

This is not good news for Nacchio, unless he's somehow able to convince the Marshals to allow him to pay for and fly on a private jet(which would include the cost of two or more Marshals to accompany him) which I don't know is even allowed. He'll be flying on JPats, aka, Con Air. [More...]

The Supreme Court today rejected without comment former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio's cert petition seeking review of his insider trading conviction.

Nacchio has been in prison since April, serving a six year sentence. The 10th Circuit, while rejecting his arguments about the exclusion of his expert witness, did rule the trial court miscalculated the amount of loss resulting from his stock sales by using the wrong standard and he should be resentenced. (Opinion here.)That hasn't happened yet.

He also has a motion for a new trial pending in the trial court.

Update 8/1: I'm glad to see that Law Prof Ellen Podgor, who specializes in White Collar Crime and really knows her stuff, agrees with me that this is a very technical opinion. She also comments:

What concerns me is the level of economic and mathematical skills needed by counsel and the courts to handle these cases. Clearly experts exist who understand the figures being presented, and have the ability to offer their schooled explanations to the court. But counsel and the court still need more than a basic understanding of economics to properly represent and sentence someone accused of insider trading.

****

Original Post 7/31

The Tenth Circuit today reversed the 72 month sentence imposed on former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio for his insider trading conviction, holding the trial court had improperly calculated his sentencing guidelines. The matter will now go back to the trial court for re-sentencing. The opinion is here.

Three groups have now filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court supporting former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio's cert petition for review of his insider trading conviction.

Here is the brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (pdf). The issues alone tell you why Nacchio's conviction has ramifications for all defendants:

• The Tenth Circuit’s Decision Effectively Eliminates Rule 16 And Forces Criminal Defendants To Comply With The Civil Expert Discovery Rules

• The Tenth Circuit’s Decision Is Inconsistent With Criminal Defendants’ Constitutional Rights And The Integrity Of The Criminal Judicial Process

• The Tenth Circuit’s Decision Makes It Less Likely That Juries Will Have Access To Essential Expert Opinion Testimony In Complex Criminal Cases

The other groups are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Washington Legal Foundation.

Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio reported to the federal prison camp at Schuylkill, PA today to begin serving his six year sentence.

Yesterday, the Tenth Circuit denied his latest request for bail pending the outcome of his Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The renewed emergency application for release is denied, and we deny the request to stay the surrender date ordered by the district court," the order by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel states.

He is still making one more attempt through an appeal to Justice Stephen Breyer. (Update: Justice Breyer has denied his request.)

Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio has filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (available here(pdf).) The issues: [More...]

In a split decision, the 10th Circuit, en banc, has reinstated the insider trading conviction and 6 year prison sentence of former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio. It also revoked his bail. The 104 page opinion is here (pdf.)

The 5-4 decision by the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates Nacchio's conviction and his six-year prison sentence and revokes his release on $2 million bond.

....Nacchio was convicted in 2007 on 19 counts of insider trading for illegally selling $52 million worth of stock six years earlier, after company insiders warned him that Qwest could not meet its financial targets.

The issue was the trial court's exlcusion of Nacchio's expert witness. [More...]

Judging from the media reactions to Thursday's oral argument in former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio's insider trading case, held before 9 judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Nacchio faces some sleepless nights ahead waiting for the final decision on whether he gets a new trial or goes directly to jail.

Rocky Mountain News reporter Jeff Smith, who has been writing on the case since the beginning and who attended yesterday's arguments reports it was all very technical and about "the rules." But the Judges seemed more interested in peppering Nacchio's lawyer with questions than it did the Government's counsel.

More....

On September 25, the 10th Circuit, en banc, will conduct a rehearing of a three judge panel's reversal of former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio's insider trading conviction.

The issue is whether the trial judge improperly excluded testimony from Nacchio's expert witness who would have disagreed with two Government experts on an issue that was central to Nacchio's guilt or innocence.

This is about fundamental fairness and affects defendants in all cases, not just Nacchio or white collar cases. A defendant’s ability to call witnesses on his behalf at trial is an integral part of the Sixth Amendment right to put on a defense. [More...]

There were a flurry of motions yesterday in the case of Qwest former CEO Joe Nacchio who faces sentencing Friday in Denver. Among them was a motion for bail pending appeal. I discuss them at length today at 5280.com.

As I wrote, the test for bail pending appeal is set by statute.

A defendant is entitled to bail pending appeal if he is not a flight or safety risk, the appeal is not for purposes of delay, and he will raise a “substantial question” on appeal which, if decided in his favor, will likely result in reversal of the conviction or a new trial.

In the Tenth Circuit, the Court has interpreted “substantial question” to mean:

.... a “close” question or one that very well could be decided the other way.’”

As I wrote when Scooter Libby was seeking bond pending appeal,

It's not necessary that Judge Walton believe he was wrong, or that reversal is probable, only that the issue presents a close question or one that could have been decided the other way.

More...