home

Nacchio Medical Condition Revealed

The judge in the Joe Nacchio case has unsealed his request to delay the March 23 start of his prison term.

Here's the doctor's letter (pdf) stating Nacchio has been undergoing treatment for several months for a suspicious growth on his leg. He had an appointment yesterday to see if a biopsy is needed to determine if it is malignant.

A hearing is scheduled Thursday on the request. The Judge denied Nacchio's sealing request even though no objections were lodged. From the court order: [More...]

Here, Defendant has based his motion for postponement of the date to report to the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons upon on his medical condition and the possibility of a need for further medical treatment. To support the request, he sought and obtained a statement from the associate of his doctor. Rather than submitting copies of his medical records, he has submitted a letter that summarizes only the aspects of his condition that are pertinent to his request. Thus, he has not only put his medical condition at issue, but also effectively redacted his medical information to include only that pertinent to his purpose.

This Court’s ruling on the motion necessarily requires assessment of the Defendant’s medical needs and the facts he has disclosed relating thereto. Therefore, the public interest in understanding the Court’s decision-making process outweighs Defendant’s desire to keep general statements about his medical condition confidential. Finding no compelling reason to seal Defendant’s motion or the supporting exhibit, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Seal Document (#534) and Motion to Seal Defendant’s Motion for Postponement (# 535) are DENIED.

Yesterday, the Government filed its response to another Nacchio request -- for bail pending a decision on his as-yet unfiled Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Government did not attempt to justify the court's ruling that the request was premature. Rather, it said Nacchio didn't spell out his exact grounds for the Petition.

Today, Team Nacchio responded, listing these grounds.

1. Whether the defendant is entitled to acquittal or a new trial because the Tenth Circuit adopted erroneous standards, in conflict with other circuits, for evaluating the materiality of internal corporate predictions and interim operating information allegedly bearing on whether the company will meet its public earnings projections.

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial because the Tenth Circuit adopted erroneous standards for the review of jury instructions that conflict with decisions of this Court and other circuits.

3. Whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial because the Tenth Circuit approved the use of impermissible procedures for the exclusion of expert testimony under Rule 702 that conflict with decisions of other circuits.

< In Defense Of AIG's Workforce | How Can Twittering Jurors Not be Cause for a Mistrial? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    They are just jerking Nacchio around: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    You note:

    Yesterday, the Government filed its response to another Nacchio request -- for bail pending a decision on his as-yet unfiled Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Government did not attempt to justify the court's ruling that the request was premature. Rather, it said Nacchio didn't spell out his exact grounds for the Petition.

    Today, Team Nacchio responded, listing these grounds.

    I'll bet that tomorrow or the day after, the government will reply (in opposition to bail pending a petition for certiorari) that, since it was so easy for Nacchio to present the grounds in its response today, the Court should deny the motion for bail because he was treating the Court frivolously by not giving them earlier.

    You may disagree, but I remain convinced the #1 reason among all reasons for Nacchio being prosecuted was that he would not join the Bush/Cheney crime family in their warrantless wiretapping, and they decided to make an example of him.

    And I do not practice in the District of Colorado.


    Seems Obvious to Me Too (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    I remain convinced the #1 reason among all reasons for Nacchio being prosecuted was that he would not join the Bush/Cheney crime family in their warrantless wiretapping, and they decided to make an example of him.


    Parent
    No, the reason he was prosecuted was (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 06:41:21 PM EST
    that the Qwest retirees all lost their money when the stock fell and needed someone to blame -- the Government was all too happy to oblige.

    Parent
    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 07:34:19 PM EST
    ...but I'm not convinced that Joe's hands are completely clean.

    Parent
    Having researched this issue long ago... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 04:50:49 PM EST
    The Judge denied Nacchio's sealing request even though no objections were lodged.

    From what I recall, federal law requires the courts to make an independent determination of whether good cause has been shown for sealing court records - even if all the parties stipulate to a sealing order.  The reason is the general presumption in favor of the public's right to know.

    right, but at least in Colorado (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 06:42:41 PM EST
    every motion to seal gets posted on the court's home page and 3 days are given to allow the public to object before the request is ruled on. If the request is denied, the filer doesn't get to take back the pleading, it's just unsealed.

    Parent
    But I assume (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    even if there are no objections from the public, the court still needs to find that the statutory standard has been satisfied in order to grant the sealing request, right?  I took your language to imply, and maybe it was just me, that the court did something irregular by denying the sealing request despite the lack of objection.

    Parent