Real Time Media

It always amazes me how fast the news cycles move. The build up, accusations and drama that surround the trial are followed by the spike in buzz once the verdict is announced then silence. Not for the defendant and his family but for everyone else involved. I wonder what happens next? An appeal? A settlement? Another Trial? Was justice really served? What was actually achieved? A man was convicted for an accounting standard that no longer exists for expenses that were non-cash and appears to be the only one in America who is going to go down for this type of alleged crime.  If the system really worked a group of CEO peers with finance experience would have been convened and would have heard the case then told us if this really mattered. But, until the system is fixed the verdict stands. I’ll keep everyone posted on the appeal as it progresses.

How is it possible to be guilty of the follow on charges but not the key to the case…CONSPIRACY? Wow…if Reyes was judged by his peers this would have been done over in an afternoon. More later….

Seems the Jury has some more questions for the Court….stay tuned.

So Day 4 ends and no verdict.

So far no verdict from the Jury just a few notes asking for clarification on a few points….will keep on it until they come back in.

Wonder what the Jurors are talking about? Seems like their may be a few folks looking at the evidence…should be a good think for the Defense.

Today a Stipulation (an agreement) regarding Exhibit 7706 was ordered.

Exhibit 7706 pertained to information about KPMG.

In order to protect the confidentiality of certain KPMG information, Greg Reyes, the Prosecution & KPMG ( non-party) all agree to remove from the record, all pages from Exhibit 7706 except pages 1, 2, 13, 14, & 15.

The Deliberations officially commenced today.

The Jury will be in insolation until they come to a verdict.

I really hope the jury understands how significant this process is, and they are able to see through all of the Prosecution’s fallacies.

The jury was officially “sequestered” by the United States Marshal during their deliberations today.

Sequestering involves isolation of jurors outside of court proceedings, disallowing any external contact.

This process is usually taken only for high profile cases, where the contact with the outside might prejudice the jury’s verdict.

In the Prosecution’s closing argument, they stated how Greg Reyes was issued 13 million stock option shares. However what they failed to mention, and Atty Neal did, was that Greg Reyes exercised only 0.3% of them!

Out of 13 million, he only exercised 40,00 total!

Prosecution, stop leaving out the important facts!

Atty Neal reminded the jury that although Greg Reyes is a defendant in this case, they should not allow the case to forget that Brocade was, and still is a very successful company.

This success was due to Greg Reyes. In his 6 years at Brocade, he increased the revenue from 24 million to 596 million. He built a great company, and Brocade’s growth and success was primarily because of Reyes’ leadership.

Closing arguments are done. Jury instructions in the am then its in the Jury’s hands.

Atty Neal points out how the Government also failed to discuss the role of the Audit Committee and how they were ultimately responsible for what is disclosed in financial statements. The Audit Committee also knew of the backdating; They in fact authorized backdated stocks to themselves!

Seems like there are so many players in the game, but Greg Reyes is the one being called out..

Prosecution needed to show that the information in the APB 25 was material to investors, and therefore investors were misled by Brocade’s 10 K forms.

However, the Prosecution failed to present any witness to prove that. The only 2 investors that did testify stated that they did not use the 10 k when making investing decisions.

Atty Neal critiques the Prosecution, and how they did not present any witnesses who could explain details of APB 25.

The Govt is so quick to point the finger at Greg Reyes for not applying APB 25 standard, when they cannot even find one witness who can testify to understanding the standard!

Not to many surprises by Pros Reeves…a lot of speculation and a few new theories. Oh yeah, he asked the Jury to ignore Defense Atty Neal’s arguments based on speculation…but not his.

Does this guy write this stuff in a vacuum. I wish I could find the book he pulls these new theories from…scary he is in a position of power.

I am amazed the Govt can make such misleading statements in a rebuttal but that is the process….no wonder Neal spent so much time creating doubt on what the Govt would say….its with the Jury have faith they can see through the smoke…our system does work…we should all pray it does.!!!

I know we are supposed to wait for the Govt’s rebuttal but I felt like clapping. Amazing closing argument. I will recap his long closing later…bottom line the Govt has so many defects with its case its kind of scary the case is still going on.

It will be interesting to see what the Govt says in their 90 minute rebuttal.

Here comes the kitchen sink, get the waiters out, the stories and BS I’m sure will be flyin.

We are on break.

Should be the last bit before the jury deliberates…Tuesday.

Wow…Neal is tough.
I love his 20 questions…I wonder how the Jury will review them?

Atty Neal reminded the jury that they (The Defense) don’t have to prove ANYTHING and that the complete burden is on the Prosecution.

And the Prosecution has failed to provide the necessary evidence to find Greg Reyes guilty.

Atty Neal introduced Prosecution’s Critical Failures of Proof which he will explain in detail during the day:

Things the Prosecution FAILED TO SHOW

1. That Finance Dept was misled
2. That Greg Reyes made accounting decisions.
3. That Greg Reyes understood any particular definition of “grant date”
4. That APB25 information was important to investors
5. That FAS 123 disclosures weren’t more complete and more useful to investors
6. That Greg Reyes intended to deceive/ cheat anyone

Atty Neal begins his strong closing argument by explaining to the jury how the Prosecution’s evidence was taken out of context.

Specifically in reference to Craig Martin’s testimony:
On cross examination, it was clear that Martin was testifying about things that were completely inconsistent, basically putting words in Reyes’ mouth.

He also responded about 50 times (during cross-examination), that he “didn’t remember” things discussed during his conversation with Reyes.