Martha Stewart's First Amendment Defense

The McLaughlin Group ^ | Mar. 7, 2004 | Lawrence O'Donnell

[tvn]

Lawrence O'Donnell on this morning's McLaughlin Group stated that Martha Stewart's appeal should be based on vioation of her First Amendment rights.

O'Donnell argued that it should be the Constitutional right of every American to lie to anyone - including government employees- except in a proceeding where testimony is taken under oath.

[Boundless]

> I'm just disgusted at the idea that someone can be not
> guilty of a crime but still go to jail for attempting
> to coverup a crime they didn't commit.

She wasn't "not guilty" of insider trading, just not charged.

Also, how can you "cover up" something that isn't there.

The 5th Amd and the right to remain silent are precisely
for situations where you're innocent, and anything you say
might tend to falsely incriminate you.

Martha's arrogance enabled her to flap her yap, and create
her own trap.

Capone wasn't convicted of his actual crimes, but was
convicted of failing to pay taxes on the profits. That
lesson has not been lost on prosecutors.

[templar]

Are we required to "lawyer up" upon the appearance of federal investigators?

Either that, keep your mouth shut, or tell the absolute truth.

No one requires you to exercise your rights, they're just there for you to use if you choose to.

[Seruzawa]

That Capone could get away with it so long says an awful lot about the competence and/or corruption of law enforcement. I don't support the use of tax codes to "get" people.

[Go Gordon]

I'm just disgusted at the idea that someone can be not guilty of a crime but still go to jail for attempting to coverup a crime they didn't commit.

Ever hear of Richard Nixon?

[Poohbah]

O'Donnell argued that it should be the Constitutional right of every American to lie to anyone - including government employees- except in a proceeding where testimony is taken under oath.

Martha's testimony WAS under oath.

It is noted that there is also another Constitutional argument which can be cited in support of the Stewart appeal. Under the Fifth Amendment, a citizen cannot be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Interviews of potential defendants by federal officials can be found to constitute illegal process designed to force a person to become a witness against himself.

Ms. Stewart always had the option of refusing to participate in said interview, or to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights at any point. She chose to lie.

[Poohbah]

I'll bet you have no experience with the conduct of "investigators".

I have.

They're not there to play tiddlywinks.

No kidding.

They're there to get the answers they want, and they'll bully you under the color of authority to get them.

What can they do? Say mean things to you?

If they can get a rich person like Stewart, imagine what they'd do to me or you.

Rule One: if you don't want to talk, don't talk.

Rule Two: if you are so weak in character or courage that you must talk, then you should tell the truth, particularly about things that are easily verified or disproven.

[Carolinamom]

6 of the Martha Stewart jurors are on Stone Phillips' Dateline now (7pm EST)

[Boundless]

> I don't support the use of tax codes to "get" people.

I don't even support taxes, nor that insider trading be
illegal, nor that DAs conduct celebrity persecutions such
as Martha's (or Rush's, for that matter). I'd to see a lot
of the law that's in play here junked. But Martha is not the
poster child for a movement to get that to happen.

But we have a case here of a person who:
- was a stockbroker, and knows the rules of the game
- can afford the finest legal representation available
- only needed to shut up

Contrast this with how Limbaugh is handling his situation -
letting his lawyer make all the statements.

But to get back to the basenote, I don't see how there is
any 1st Amd connection here. Martha's problem was not in
being restrained from free speaking. It was from speaking
too freely.

[TheLion]

The "Jurors" seem very reasonable....pretty good show so far.

[hosepipe]

I think its time for Martha to use the:
Tighten the old gluts Sphincter contraction defense...

[an amused spectator]

Either that, keep your mouth shut, or tell the absolute truth.

What can they do? Say mean things to you?

Maybe you two Know-Alls can explain to me why exactly ANY American would want to talk to a federal investigator, under any circumstance.

I mean, Poohbah, if all they can do is say mean things to you, why not just laugh and slam the door in their face?

[Carolinamom]

I agree. It was interesting to hear what they thought. I was a juror once in a murder trial that lasted for 3 months. Being inside that particular jury room was a most enlightening experience as to the individual jurors and their "take" on the evidence.

Unfortunely for me, about half way through the Stewart jurors' interview, a monstrous wind storm went through here.......a veritable roar like a tornado. Limbs from a large oak tree in my back yard tore off and landed, broken into pieces, onto my deck. Then the rains came. Things have quietened down now, thank goodness, but I missed the rest of the jurors interview.

[Theophilus]

I'm just disgusted at the idea that someone can be not guilty of a crime but still go to jail for attempting to coverup a crime they didn't commit.

Furthermore, we don't pile on charges for misleading or lying to the court when those who plead innocent are subsequently found guilty. Actions like these up the ante against any who attempt to defend themselves. I guess the 5th is becomming more a necessity than an option. The successful in this country are going to have to have a lawyer surgically attached to themselves soon. The word to the inquisitors is "mum" unless you're arrogant and then it's: "nunya"

[Capt. Tom]

I mean, Poohbah, if all they can do is say mean things to you, why not just laugh and slam the door in their face?

Having had some deposition experience ; here is a little trick that can be used against you.

Make yourself comfortable Mr. Poohbah. You will be sworn in. The deposition will be recorded. If at anytime you want to go off the record and stop the recorded testimony just raise your right hand. We will go off the record and when you are through I will signal when we are on the record.

(Now they lull you into a false sense of security.)
Also Mr Poohbah you will be given a verbatim transcript of your deposition and if you agree with it you can sign it. If something is in it you dont like or you have a disagreement with the transcript then you are not forced to sign it.

So now after you read the transcript you decide you want to change something slightly. They tell you no you can't change it. You say well I'm not going t sign it. They say Who cares?.

You see that nice young lady who recorded it. She is going to sign it saying Mr Poobah appeared before me this day and here is his sworn testimony. So you see Mr. Poohbah we didn't need your signature anyway.

Once you open your mouth in a deposition you can't take it back or amend it . At least in my experience.

Some FR lawyers may want to comment. -Tom

[templar]

Maybe you two Know-Alls can explain to me ...

I appreciate the respect in your reply. In fact, I appreciate it so much that I choose not to discuss anything with you, or to consider any point you may be trying to make.

[Poohbah]

Maybe you two Know-Alls can explain to me why exactly ANY American would want to talk to a federal investigator, under any circumstance.

Because one has knowledge of illegal acts committed by others.

I mean, Poohbah, if all they can do is say mean things to you, why not just laugh and slam the door in their face?

I've done exactly that on one occasion.

Nothing happened after that.

[Poohbah]

Wow. There are some real knuckleheads out there.

[JamesA]

If you are guilty you're guilty. There is no such thing as only half guilty, only jump half out of an airplane to parachute. She was judged by her peers now the bleeding hearts say she isn't that guilty...When is just being guilty enough...

[an amused spectator]

In fact, I appreciate it so much that I choose not to discuss anything with you, or to consider any point you may be trying to make.

Good. I'll remember to mark your replies to me with an asterisk*.

*This guy just wants to hear his own opinion, unchallenged.

[an amused spectator]

I've done exactly that on one occasion.

Awfully bold move for a lawyer, Poohbah. What about the rest of us lesser mortals? Hmmmmmmmm?

Because one has knowledge of illegal acts committed by others.

I'm sure Bob Lowe would agree with you. Or he might punch you out. ;-)

prolly not, if he knew you were a legal type. He's learned his lesson.