Slammer or not, Martha keeps pitching

Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^ | 7/22/04 | Michael M. Bates

[baracuda]

Someone educate me here. Why, after sentencing, is Martha Stewart not starting to serve her sentence?

If you or I was just finished getting sentenced by a judge for being convicted of a felony don't you know that they would take you straight from the court room to the jailhouse.

What gives here? Any enlightened legal scholars please explain.

[Zavien Doombringer]

[Sans-Culotte]

Thanks for posting the "Living Behind Bars" graphic. I had not seen that one yet. / sarcasm >

[Mike Bates]

According to CBS News:
But (Judge) Cedarbaum, citing nationwide confusion over a recent Supreme Court ruling on sentencings, allowed Stewart to postpone the sentence while her lawyers appeal her conviction - a process that could take months, and that legal experts have called an uphill battle.

[BikerNYC]

In general, one of two things could be at work.

Judges often let non-violent defendants surrender directly to the correctional facility the Bureau of Prisons designates as the insitutition which will house the inmate. A surrender date is arranged weeks after the actual sentence.

For short sentences, defendants are often granted bail pending appeal, allowing them to appeal their convictions before serving the entire sentence. If Martha's sentnece was five years and not five months, I bet ya that while she may have been allowed to surrender to the designated institution, she would not have been given bail pending appeal.

[newgeezer]

The following day she spoke of the many, many good people who have gone to prison and cited Nelson Mandela.

I will always remember her for that. Of all the legendary people who have ever served time in prison, she picked the purveyor of flaming-tire necklaces.

[Mike Bates]

Of all the legendary people who have ever served time in prison, she picked the purveyor of flaming-tire necklaces.

Since she's a 'Rat, perhaps that was to be expected.

[newgeezer]

Thanks for posting the "Living Behind Bars" graphic. I had not seen that one yet. / sarcasm >

Since I hadn't seen it before, I'm glad he posted it.

[Restorer]

Of all the legendary people who have ever served time in prison, she picked the purveyor of flaming-tire necklaces.

I believe the necklace proponent was Mrs. Mandela, not Mr. Mandela. As far as I know, he never publicly promoted such atrocities.

[Badeye]

Thw worst for Martha Stewart has yet to come. There is a very good reason the insider trading charges were filed in Civil Court, not criminal.

In the coming Civil Trial, Stewart can't plead the Fifth Amendment. She can't refuse to answer questions, she can't refuse to sit on the witness stand.

And thats the ballgame for her, and Omniliving, folks. When that trial is over, Martha Stewart will never be allowed to sit as the CEO of a company again, will never be able to sit on any board of directors. She will never be able to assume a position of control in any company.

And the verdict will cost her millions of dollars in fines.

Won't happen til the appeal process is over....about 18 months from now.

[Eva]

She was permitted to remain free until her appeals are exhausted.

[newgeezer]

Ping.

Having noticed your "FREE MARTHA" tagline, I thought you might like this.

[Eva]

Just what is it that Stewart did that warranted the cost of this investigation? She stands accused of telling investigators that she wasn't guilty of what they accused her of doing. The fact is that the prosecutors were not able to make those accusations in a court of law, where she would have been forced to proclaim her guilt or innocence, so the prosecutors charged her with lying about her guilt. Now does that make much sense? The reason that they were unable to charge her with insider trading is because she was not an insider.

[presidio9]

Martha's an idiot and a FOB. She's also the victim of a witch-hunt based on trumped up charges.

[Mike Bates]

Just what is it that Stewart did that warranted the cost of this investigation?

What was the cost of the investigation?

[Eva]

I don't know what the cost was, but it's got to have been big bucks, and now there is the case against the gov't witness who lied on the stand to get the conviction against Stewart. All for what? to make gov't lawyers look like control freaks?

[Eva]

From News Max:And then there's this tidbit: "Officials with the Bush-Cheney campaign point out that Berger gave a surprise background briefing to reporters on Feb. 27 on behalf of the Kerry campaign, in which he outlined airline security issues apparently drawn from the now-missing classified memos Berger is accused of removing from the National Archives," FNC reported.

[BikerNYC]

In the coming Civil Trial, Stewart can't plead the Fifth Amendment. She can't refuse to answer questions, she can't refuse to sit on the witness stand.

She certainly can. There are consequences of doing so in a civil case that are not present in a criminal case, but she does not lose her Fifth Amendment rights when she walks through the civil courtroom doors.

[Mike Bates]

The way your post began, I thought Sandy Baby had maybe given briefings to Martha Stewart.