9:21 am ET
May 13, 2011

Raj’s $40 Million Defense: A Postgame Breakdown

    • Why no press on Lauer's acquittal?

    • Dowd's go for broke strategy was mapped out in advance and with the full knowledge and assent of Raj. This is not some stick up man in the Bronx who is locked up and whose only window to a legal strategy is the lawyer who visits with him for 10 minutes every other month. Raj had the budget to pay for the best legal team money could buy. I venture that he interviewed every top criminal lawyer in the country and selected the one who would best employ his strategy: all or nothing. All of these decisions were made in the context of a complete acquittal. To no one's surprise, it did not work. The question is not what Dowd could have done to reduce Raj's exposure but what he could have done different with a client who demanded all out victory. The answer is nothing.

    • It was a defense verdict; Dowd got $40 million.

    • There is no better work for attorneys that representing deep pockets in a near-hopeless case.

    • From Kenneth Ellman, email: ke@kennethellman.com, Newton, New Jersey
      I have not studied the entire trial and so comment at a disadvantage.
      I do believe however in a case such as this where there is substantial testimony of the
      Defendant offered by the prosecution in the guise of "tape recorded conversations", then
      "the cat is out of the bag". The Defendant already testified through these tape recordings and in such a case there is really only two choices:
      1. Make the best deal you can and avoid a trial: OR
      2. The Defendant MUST take the stand and explain to the Jury why he is not guilty and or
      why what he did is not criminal as portrayed by the government.

      Basically the weight and credibility of the tape recordings must be rebutted. This can only be done by testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge who can explain and show another view of what the government is trying to portray. That can either be by the Defendant himself or another witness who has such knowledge to cast doubt on the tape recordings as portrayed in the government case.

      IN this case it appears that nothing as above was done.
      The question is after spending such as incredible amount on the defense, did the defense attorney at least try the case in advance before a mock jury and see the reaction of normal individuals and therefore have some basis to determine whether Defendant should testify? How I could only dream of a budget such as what the Defense had here for my cases. It really does seem that a strategic error occurred and a lesson can be learned as to when it may be necessary to have the Defendant testify. The rule that a Defendant must never testify is NOT a rule at all but a Judgment call on each individual case and circumstance.
      Kenneth Ellman, Newton, New Jersey

    • if dowd's suits don't fit youi must convict.

    • Another Tamil Tiger goes down, his lawyer reminds me of the old Capone days defense shills bu het is a great example of a a maladjusted legal buffoon. "Mr. Middle Finger" is a pathetic riot that would get disciplined in a third grade class.

    • The problem with high profile cases is that if you f**k up and lose, your carrier as a trial lawyer is probably over. If you win, you are a star. In this case, Raj made a huge mistake by selecting an uncharismatic attorney who was unable to connect with the jury. And everybody knows that an appeal to the 2nd Circuit is just waste of money and time.

    • they are very expensive and don't deliver. $40MM in the gutter and the poor guy is found guilty on all charges.

    • It was hopeless and Raj's refusal to entertain a plea deal just shows how above the law he thought he was...foolish! Now his children will be without thier father for more years and shamed by his behavior. This is unfortunately the definition of is life.

    • Raj should sue Dowd for legal malpractice

    • Lawyers don't make the facts, and lawyers don't get to decide whether a criminal defendant should cop a plea. Based on the strength of the government's case, I don't see how this case could have been won. Dowd may be brilliant, or Dowd may be a nincompoop, but Raj's problems don't flow from bad lawyering. They flow from his having repeatedly, brazenly violated laws with significant criminal consequences.

    • Better: "if you believe our sh**, you must acquit."

      (Sh** is not a perjorative term. It's like a coke dealer wanting to "sell you sone sh**". It just means "stuff".)

    • We should all appreciate that the Fed has a 90%+ conviction rate, mostly through plea deals. Trials are becoming a rare event in this day and age. Those defendants and their attorneys who choose to go to trial, because they believe they have meritorous defenses are deserving of some admiration. The trend of the comments above seems to indicate that IF the Government decides you are guilty, you must roll over and concede. I was just acquitted of 12 counts of money laundering in a three week federal trial. I am grateful for the efforts of my trial attorney, and know the pressures of over two years of KNOWING you are innocent of the Government's charges---but that you can NEVER clear your name without the trial. The risk is, that EVEN knowing you are innocent, that somehow, some way, the jury might find you guilty.....the stakes are incredibly high----especially in my case where I was accused with my husband, who was found
      guilty. Our poor children---faced with the prospect of the possible loss of both parents---and absolutely no prospects except: plead guilty of a crime you did not commit OR face a trial with the risks of conviction where our Government will stop at nothing to convict you, and where for them money is not an issue.

Add a Comment


About Law Blog



    • Law Blog on Twitter

Must Reads

Law Bureau

Top Law Stories