The Insider Trading Laws are completely unenforceable. The law seems to be used vindictively and arbitrarily.
And think of this scenario - why isn't this case considered Insider Trading?
Imagine I own shares in my company. I'm about to buy a house, and I need some money. I consider selling my shares, but I have some non-public information that I know is going to increase the value of my shares. So - instead of selling my shares, I take a Margin Loan against them (or just hold onto them), and then sell the shares at a later point at a higher price. I have certainly benefitted from my Insider Information, but this would not be considered as Insider Trading - why not??
But two wrongs do not make a right. I have to take issue with Martha's counsel for some of their tactics. Claiming that the alleged drug use of the star witness had any impact on this case is farcical.