I call it the finger pointing defense. They are going to say that they relied on others and if something was wrong with the off-the-book partnership, the professionals should have told them.

I don't think they have any legitimate grounds for appeal. You have to have some major screw up for a case like this to be reversed or for a judge as prominent as this to be challenged by an appeals court and this doesn't rise to that level.

Once a defendant takes the stand, the issue becomes 'Do we believe what he is saying or do we believe the prior case of the prosecution?'.

Cramer's moving the markets like the star Internet analysts did during the tech bubble. He's got a big following of people who think they're acting responsibly by following Cramer's advice--but in reality he's dangerous to their health.

Too much money has been spent on both sides and my feeling is that the company can get a fair trial given the diverse amount of people in Houston.

Juries tend to be offended by the idea that consultants are watching their every move and predicting how they are thinking. Nobody likes feeling manipulated.

If these numbers turn out to be accurate, this appears to be the largest scam of retail investors ever. It certainly eclipses the high-profile boiler-room cases of the early 1990s.