Martha Stewart Lawyers Seek New Trial

AP ^ | March 31, 2004

[Howlin]

NEW YORK - Martha Stewart (news - web sites)'s lawyers asked on Wednesday for a new trial, claiming that one of the jurors who convicted her lied about his criminal record during jury selection.

In papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, defense attorney Robert Morvillo accused juror Chappell Hartridge of violating his oath, lying to serve on the jury and depriving Stewart her right to a fair trial.

Stewart was convicted March 5 along with her broker, Peter Bacanovic, of obstructing justice and lying to the government about her sale of 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock on Dec. 27, 2001.

Stewart is scheduled to be sentenced June 17, when she faces from 10 to 16 months in prison.

Her defense lawyers said in court papers they have learned since the verdict that Hartridge was arrested for an alleged assault on a woman in 1997.

In a juror questionnaire, Hartridge claimed he had never been in court other than for a minor traffic violation, the lawyers said.

Hartridge was arraigned on the assault charge, which was later dropped, the lawyers said.

[Paleo Conservative]

If criminals are barred from serving on juries, how is she ever going to get a jury of her peers?

[anniegetyourgun]

meow!

[Notwithstanding]

Is this argument anything more than deperation?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Martha ping

[Simcha7]

Shalom!

I'm wondering just How MUCH $$$ Limo-Liberal Friends of Martha Paid...

Mr. Chappell Hartridge to get ALL Confused on his Juror Questionnaire / Personal Fact Sheet???

I knew that Something was UP with this guy when he couldn't WAIT to get himself in Front of the Cameras and on TV NEWS.

JURORS...Should NOT ever be ALLOWED to give Post Deliberation Interviews or make $$$ from Books, Movies or TV Shows after their Jury Service is completed.

[Sacajaweau]

Sorry, the guy has no record except for traffic violations. I don't think it will work.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Is this argument anything more than deperation?

No. According to a U.S. Supreme Court case (I don't remember the name, but I once cited it in court), to get a new trial on these grounds, you have to show that (1) the juror lied, and (2) that, if he had told the truth, he would have been ineligible to serve. Being arrested, but not convicted, does not make someone ineligible. So this motion is a loser.

[JLS]

If he was asked if he had an arrest record, it might well work. As they just said on Fox, there is certainly some irony if someone lied to get on a jury to convict someone for lying to the FBI.

Who should be heading to jail, the person who lied to the FBI or the person who lied to a Federal Court? At the very least if this guy lied in person or on his jury form, he should be indicted and tried.

[savedbygrace]

They might argue that since the incident involved an attack on a WOMAN, then they WOULD have had reason to dismiss him for having a history of hating women.

Note that I'm not making that argument, just thinking a smarmy defense attorney might see it this way.

[Simcha7]

PLEASE...RE-READ from AP Story...

"Her defense lawyers said in court papers they have learned since the verdict that Hartridge was arrested for an alleged assault on a woman in 1997."

"In a juror questionnaire, Hartridge claimed he had never been in court other than for a minor traffic violation, the lawyers said."

"Hartridge was arraigned on the assault charge, which was later dropped, the lawyers said."

"Martha Stewart Lawyers Seek New Trial AP ^ | March 31, 2004"

I Guess...Time Will Tell, Who was Telling The TRUTH...Nu?

[js1138]

Is this argument anything more than deperation?

By itself, maybe, but this juror went on TV after the trial and boasted it was a "victory for the little person."

I think they have a case for a mistrial based on both counts.

[EternalHope]

Hmmm....

Any bets the defense knew about the lie well before the end of the trial? Sort of an "insurance policy" just in case the jury convicted?

[Lurking Libertarian]

By itself, maybe, but this juror went on TV after the trial and boasted it was a "victory for the little person." I think they have a case for a mistrial based on both counts.

A juror can say anything they want to after a trial and it cannot be used to upset the verdict, under Rule 606 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The juror could have said that they decided the case by tossing a coin, and it wouldn't matter-- nothing a juror says after the verdict is in can be considered. (The theory behind the rule is to prevent attempts to bribe or intimidate jurors once the case is over.)

[stillafreemind]

Thanks for this article Howlin. I guess I will pretty much stand alone on this..but I say good. I hope the heck she gets off.

I do believe in the rule of law. But..I think people were really reaching here and really wanting to get a name for the country to sit up and take notice on.

I also notice alot of hoopla along party lines. I wonder how we all would be reacting if it were say.. Rush or some other highly visible conservative? To me .. her being a democrat means squat. Its that she could be convicted of lying while not being under oath that bothers me. No..I do not think lying is a good thing..but it happens..especailly in times of high emotion and being scared. Any one who says they haven't lied in some similar circumstance certainly needs to be applauded and probably is in a very minute bunch.

I believe on alot of stuff that is happening right now...we should be forgetting political parties and acting like Americans.

Thanks again!

[beckett]

Good chance the defense will prevail. This looks like a reversible error. I wonder if somebody dropped a dime on the guy before or after the verdict.

[freeperfromnj]

I just heard on the radio at the top of the hour that he has an assault charge record. This is the guy who was all over TV right after the verdict claiming it was a victory for the little guy.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

From a story at myway.com which was linked by Drudge... apparently this juror has lied more than once. If this is true then it will probably create a mistrial, seeing how Martha's trial was all about lying:

"The Stewart filing said Hartridge was arrested in 1997 after a woman with whom he was living filed an assault complaint. The filing said Hartridge spent several days in jail before the woman withdrew her complaint because she could not miss work to attend court."

"The filing also said Hartridge lied on his jury questionnaire by omitting the fact that he has been sued at least three times. It said he also lied by not disclosing that he was once accused of stealing from a Little League group."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040331/D81LKB200.html
Story by Erin McClam

---

So, he lied 3 times... then went on TV to brag about it.

I don't think that will fly. Martha, better send those color-coordinated, striped-cottons back to the store.

Hoppy

[uncitizen]

When Hartridge came running down the courthouse stairs after the verdict to be the first one to the microphones, and proceeded to say something like "we all knew from the beginning that Martha was guilty", i had questions. #1 how did he know what the others thought at the beginning, they're not supposed to discuss that, #2 how stupid is this guy to be saying these incriminating things, and #3 did this guy have his mind made up from the outset.

[maro]

What if the argument is that the juror was hopelessly biased, and had an affirmative desire (evidenced by the alleged lie) to get on that jury so that he could do a number on Martha S.?