I don't remember too many high profile cases involving AG Spitzer actually making it to trial. His forte seems to be in getting defendants to make settlements on generous terms for the state of New York.
But alas, Sihpol and his case proceeded to trial. A New York jury apparently thought the State's case against him for "late trading" was weak. They sided with Sihpol on 29 counts. The jurors weren't as convinced as AG Spitzer was that late trading was unlawful.
Seeing as AG Spitzer is one of America's most powerful unelected leaders--elected by New Yorkers, perhaps, despite the fact that many of his high-profile lawsuits have profound effects nationally--I like to read articles discussing the latest developments in his interesting tenure as NY AG.
In any event, the editorial closes by noting the U.S. Department of Justice's ability to secure verdicts in major fraud cases, whereas AG Spitzer has used NY's Martin Act to prosecute legally questionable cases. My thought is: Why don't other states get the message and pass Martin Act equivalents? It's seems more reasonable than not that enterprising state legislators would wish to keep their states on equal footing with NY and get in on the aggressive litigation action. (Not that that would necessarily be a good thing.)
Short of a more desirable situation in which federal authorities deal with business and commercial matters of interstate import, it's a wonder why other states haven't taken cue from AG Spitzer and become more agressive. Maybe we should just give the states more time...