How do you figure this is clear cut case of insider trading. What's your evidence to reach that verdict, that the jury apparently failed to see?
Perhaps if you disagree that it's "clear cut", you at least agree that it was plausible. It wasn't simply bullying, that seems certain.
His defense was not that he didn't trade based on a tip, but that he never agreed to keep the tip confidential, and he challenged the definition of what an insider is.
This is a technicality. That's the problem with insider trading laws - "insider" isn't really defined. So, although it's often common sense and most people can make a judgment call on the spirit of the law, this often won't be sufficient for a trial. Still, this doesn't mean the SEC is wrong to pursue such cases.
Just knowing the timing alone would suggest a greater than 50% chance of him being guilty to me. I'd convict him in 5 minutes.
The government's claim: Mark Cuban was on a phone call where he was told information and promised not to trade based on it. He immediately went out and sold his stock.
Mark Cuban's claim: Mark Cuban was on a phone call where he was told information but didn't promise anything. He immediately went out and sold his stock.
Both of these claims would exhibit the same timing, so I don't see how timing can help decide the important question, which was whether he was technically an "insider" for the purpose of the law.