Trial Witness Said to Cast Doubt on Part of Testimony
Another flaw has been discovered in the stock options backdating trial of Brocade CEO Gregory Reyes. Elizabeth Moore, a Brocade employee and principal witness in the case disclosed to associates and friends that her testimony may have been untrue. Moore, who had originally testified that Reyes had deceived Brocade, has now retracted her testimony.
In an affidavit, James Hulbard, senior Vice President of Merrill Lynch stated that Moore told him that certain aspects of her testimony were false regarding the backdating. She states that she and others in the finance department did not refer to the practice as “backdating” but they knew Brocade looked back and chose favorable prices for employee stock options.
It is not clear whether or not this new information could over turn the verdict, but Moore has stated that she would assert the Fifth Amendment if asked to testify. Moore’s lawyer on the other hand is claiming Moore did not lie.
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
A principal witness in the stock-options backdating trial that ended in a conviction of Gregory L. Reyes, the chief executive of Brocade Communications Systems Inc., has told associates her testimony may have been untrue, according to court documents.
In affidavits, friends and associates of the witness, Elizabeth Moore, a Brocade employee who testified that Mr. Reyes deceived the company, said she had privately retracted her testimony.
So this alone should get him a new trial!
On what grounds do they even have to continue with a new trial? The government already had to lie, throw it out!
The thing is it should not have even been brought to trial in the first place! How can two cases against the same company have two separate theories with the same prosecution team?
I believe this information should definitely be taken into consideration. A man could be sent to jail and his whole life flipped upside down. Every little it of evidence needs to be considered in a case such as this, when there is such “gray area”.
First, a witness that is unsure of her own testimony and recants! Second, the prosecutor lied to the jury so is it outside the realm of believable that he would suborn perjury?
So did the government bully her into the first statement saying that Reyes deceived Brocade?
Another flaw? This prosecutor needs to be thrown out, needs to loose his license.
She privately retracted her testimony? So she will go public with this, right? I mean it could really save Reyes. She is the key witness to prove his innocence!
Is it considered another flaw because the prosecutors bullied Moore into her first statement? Because the way I see it is that at least she is coming out with it now, before it is WAY to late.
In my opinion it seems that there are quite a few witnesses being called by the prosecution where certain aspects of there statements have been false. I mean isn’t that why in the recent trial the defense called for a mistrial?