Courtroom Tales of Martha's Lies . . . [NYT Editorial supports jury's conviction of Martha]

The NYT ^ | March 6, 2004 | NYT Editorial Board

[summer]

Courtroom Tales of Martha's Lies . . .

Published: March 6, 2004

Martha Stewart, the woman who capitalized on her sense of decorum and good taste to build a business empire, is likely to go to jail for lying. Despite some significant overreaching in framing the original charges against her, the trial vindicated the government's decision to prosecute her and her broker. A Manhattan jury convicted Ms. Stewart yesterday of lying to federal prosecutors and of conspiring with her broker, Peter Bacanovic, to obstruct inquiries into why she sold her nearly 4,000 shares of ImClone Systems on Dec. 27, 2001. Ms. Stewart was found guilty on all four counts considered by the jury; her broker, on four of five.

Earlier, at the conclusion of the testimony, Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, the presiding federal district judge, had tossed out the most serious charge, securities fraud, against Ms. Stewart. That was the right call. Prosecutors did overreach with their fanciful charge that in defending herself, Ms. Stewart had been conspiring to prop up her company's stock price.

Absent a straightforward insider-trading charge, the jury was left to determine that there had been an illegal cover-up — and on that, the evidence was compelling — without defining the underlying impropriety. Still, the narrative that emerged at the trial justified the government's determination. This trial was not about unfairly targeting a celebrity defendant, but about enforcing the transparency of financial markets.

The trial depicted a cozy world where insiders routinely use their wealth and connections to benefit from insider information. Samuel Waksal, ImClone's former chief executive and Ms. Stewart's close friend, is serving a seven-year prison term for illegally dumping his own holdings in his company's stock on that same Dec. 27, before it became public knowledge that the Food and Drug Administration had refused to approve the company's anticancer drug, Erbitux. En route to a Mexican vacation, Ms. Stewart was informed by her broker's office that Dr. Waksal was dumping his shares.

The clumsy attempts by Ms. Stewart and her broker to fabricate alternative explanations for her subsequent stock sale are what did them in.Despite being a former stockbroker and director of the New York Stock Exchange, Ms. Stewart's actions were openly contemptuous of the government's right to police the integrity of the markets. As for Mr. Bacanovic, his prosecution should dissuade others in financial services who might be tempted to let a few favored clients benefit from insider information.

[Miss Marple]

Are you saying that those who think she was guilty are anti-capitalist?

Personally, I am holding her to the same standards I held Clinton...lying under oath. The difference is that these jurors actually belive in the law, unlike the Senate.

[summer]

I am holding her to the same standards I held Clinton...lying under oath

One attorney on tv made the point that some people don't realize Martha did break the law by her lies while responding to federal investigators.

According to this attorney, one can lie with impunity to local and state officials -- but, if you tell a lie to federal officials, that is the same as telling a lie under oath.

[summer]

However, Martha, with her background as a former stockbroker, and having had her own seat on the NYSE, surely knew this.

[sergeantdave]

What really over-torques my bolts is that a citizen can face prison time for lying to some Marxist bureaucrat. What a double standard. Politicians and bureaucrats take on oath to support and defend the constitution. We all know how some government employees, both elected and appointed, use the constitution like toilet paper. If these people don't support their oath, I consider that lying, at best.

Forget about Stewart - she's a liberal who supports liberals. If these Marxist slugs can imprison Stewart for lying to an investigator, they can throw anyone in prison. The hell with that. These jurors should have nullified the charges just to show the fed Marxists that double standards will not be tolerated.

I'm damn sick and tired of the "do as I say, not as I do" double standard of these socialist slugs. Either we all should be subject to the same legal standards or to hell with the law. Which is it, Mr. Fed? A reading of the Declaration of Independence to these socialists is in order here.

I've had it with these people. Bastards.

[Cicero]

Her biggest mistake was to talk to a government agent except through her lawyers.

Rule number one is don't say anything.

[kingu]

Rule number one is don't say anything.

Rule number two: when caught lying, rewrite history. "I was mistaken and I'm deeply sorry. Of course that is right, and I'm ashamed that it didn't come out right in the first place."

Rule number three: If you're lying and rewriting history didn't do the trick, plead guilty.

[Regulator]

That amount is obscene

What's obscene about it? The government routinely spends millions to nail someone because some prosecutor - like, for instance, Eliot Spitzer - wants to make a name for himself and run for office. And if you don't have the money to defend yourself against an onslaught like that, well, too bad. They have all the money in the world. They can come down on you with bogus charges - like the incomprehensibly unjust charge in this case that was thrown out - and you will go bankrupt fighting them.

Don't believe me? Ask the Iran-Contra defendants, like Oliver North and Robert MacFarlane. One of the reasons Ken Starr came down on Clinton was to point out what a blunt object the Special Prosecutor law was - a virtual money pool dedicated to "getting" anyone that the other political party wanted put away. Note that the Democrats voted to get rid of the SP law after that, having successfully destroyed the reputations of countless Republicans with it, mostly for crap that paled in comparison to the crimes the Democrats engage in.

I don't like Ms. Smirk or her Linen Line. But the whole gig here was a set from the get - a show trial by the attorneys to let the capitalists know that success will be dealt with severly, and if the little people want good furniture, they can get it from the government approved store, and no other, by god.

[summer]

Her biggest mistake was to talk to a government agent except through her lawyers.

But, even so, Cicero -- there would still have been questions, and some type of resolution was necessary.

The time period worked against her, too, because the questioning happened shortly after the Dec sale, in early Feb. It wasn't exactly years and years ago or something like that.

[summer]

Either we all should be subject to the same legal standards or to hell with the law.

I am guessing the prosecutors very much wanted to show: we are all held to the same standards. (Apparently, they didn't convince you, though.)

[Regulator]

What really over-torques my bolts is that a citizen can face prison time for lying to some Marxist bureaucrat

Dead on. Where's the guy in the FDA who leaked the info to Waksal? Leavenworth? Lompoc? Hah. Still at the FDA, looking forward to that federal retirement. Nothing will happen to him - might make FDA look baaaaad, and we wouldn't want thaaat. Noooooo.

The people in the government lie to you, lie in court, lie to Congress, lie to each other, and nothing. Nothing happens to them at all.

[summer]

a show trial by the attorneys

I'm not convinced of that. I mean, does everyone have the advantage of a broker who tells you to sell just BEFORE the stock you own is about to crash?

[summer]

The people in the government lie to you, lie in court, lie to Congress, lie to each other, and nothing. Nothing happens to them at all.

I'm sure there are in fact people -- lots of people -- who get away with whatever. But, Martha mistakenly assumed she would be one of them. And, that's where she does get sympathy from some I've talk to. They say: "Hey, she may have done something wrong, but so what -- others do a LOT worse and they never get caught."

[Tribune7]

I have yet to see a Freeper defend criminal action due to political affiliation. What comes most quickly to mind is Janklow's homicide by vehicle investigation and conviction. Nor do I see a lot of sympathy for Rowland in CT. Nor do I remember a lot of support for Newt or Livingstone when they were caught cheating.

[Tribune7]

but, if you tell a lie to federal officials, that is the same as telling a lie under oath.

That's scary. I would have acquitted her.

[summer]

That's actually what this attorney said. Durig an investigation - if it's state or local, you can lie, but if it's federal officials asking the questions, you're in trouble if you lie. I've never heard of that kind of distinction between local, state and federal.

[summer]

Durig = During

[summer]

And, I should say, what the attorney said was you can lie in a local or state investigation - and it's not the same as telling a lie in a federal investigation, because: telling a lie in a federal investigation is the same as telling a lie under oath. (The attorney did not say 'it's OK to lie' to anyone; just that the law views that lie differently if it happens during a federal investigation.)

[summer]

All of which makes me wonder - wasn't Jayson Blair telling lies in print during a federal investigation of the DC sniper case? Or am I wrong here? Or is it because he himself wasn't under investigation, he gets off here? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.

[summer]

Where's the guy in the FDA who leaked the info to Waksal?

This name never came out in Waksal's trial? I would think it would have.

[Tribune7]

All of which makes me wonder - wasn't Jayson Blair telling lies in print during a federal investigation of the DC sniper case?

He certainly was. Ths thread notes how the media had a different prespective on Clinton's lies to federal prosecutors.