If you read the entire article, this seems to be the timeline:<p>1) He is tried for insider trading, and convicted.<p>2) He appeals this because the trial excluded a key witness that supported his innocence .<p>3) He WINS this appeal, and is granted another trial.<p>4) He is tried again, this time not in front of a jury. The circuit court of appeals, where this is tried (stressing: without a jury this time) convicts him 5-4.<p>This isn't nearly as clear cut as some of the people in this thread are making it, and it does arouse some suspicion.