Martha Stewart Refused April Deal To Avoid Prison

PR Newswire ^ | 3/7/04

[11th Earl of Mar]

Prosecutors Offered Martha Stewart a Deal Last April: Cop To One Count of Making a False Statement and Receive Probation and Continue to Work at Omnimedia, Sources Say

She Refused to Plead Guilty to a Felony

NEW YORK, March 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that the Feds gave Martha Stewart an opportunity to avoid prison. Federal prosecutors offered Stewart a deal last April to cop to one count of making a false statement, say several sources familiar with the offer. She would have received probation and could continue working at her company, they say. But she refused to plead guilty to a felony, and a defense source says the Feds couldn't guarantee she would stay out of jail.

And federal investigators say she could have avoided the entire mess if she had confessed in the beginning. Had she admitted wrong doing in early 2002, she could have gotten off with a $200,000 fine and no jail time, report Detroit Bureau Chief Keith Naughton and Special Correspondent Barney Gimbel in the March 15 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 8).

After a seven week trial, the jury deliberated for three days before convicting Stewart on all four counts.

One juror sobbed as the judge ticked off all the guilty counts. Martha's daughter, Alexis, doubled over in tears in the front row of the gallery. Alexis's husband John Cuti, also one of Martha's lawyers, buried his face in his hands at the defense table. Stewart stared straight ahead, showing no emotion.

Martha Stewart's case may set the new standard for judging fat cats who don't play by the rules, write Naughton and Gimbel. "We're now going to see the 'Martha test' as a fair punishment for white-collar crimes," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, associate dean of the Yale School of Management.

"This is going to have a strong influence on jurors from here on out." And legal experts say she'll likely go to prison for one to three years, probably at a minimum- security "prison farm."

[Howlin]

It sure is easier, isn't?

You don't have to keep track of all your lies, plus you don't have to worry about what to wear to court!

[Howlin]

She might have talked her way into a harsher sentence.

I think every lawyer I've seen on TV since Friday has acknowledged that the only reason she didn't get on the stand was because she was going to lie.......LOL.

[mass55th]

"I think you should come out of retirement. Special assignment, you know? :-)"

LOL! It would be worth a laugh or two at that!! Nothing I'd like better than watching them toss Martha's cell...er, I mean salad! Ha ha !

[tbeatty]

She is? Wow, is that the latest fad for accused people? Didn't Michael Jackson do the same thing?

The problem is that she is no longer accused. She is convicted. To receive a favorable sentence she needs to accept responsibility and appear contrite. She can appeal the process but she would be wise to stop saying she did nothing wrong, and as I understand it, she stopped saying that shortly after conviction.

[Wilhelm Tell]

It does seem odd that the government did not have enough evidence to make the charges of insider trading stick, but they were able to convict her of lying about insider trading. The do-gooders have made too many 1984ish laws where everyone is guilty of something. We don't want a system where people can set up phony companies and then cash out at the right moment, but we have gone to the other extreme with arbitrary and unrealistic ideas about "fairness."

So she lied to the government -- the government lies to us all the time. I remember the wasted years the Feds went after Microsoft while Bin Ladin's terrorists plotted freely in this country. The government -- especially those politicians who scream about "fairness" all the time -- have lost credibility in my eyes.

Maybe Martha Stewart isn't a "nice" person. She isn't likeable like O.J. Simpson, so hordes of angry citizens did not march from the welfare offices and bars to the streets to riot on her behalf. Instead, she is a "ruthless" business woman -- something the left loves in theory but hates in practice. The last time I looked, the world is a ruthless place.

[Cboldt]

It does seem odd that the government did not have enough evidence to make the charges of insider trading stick ...

Yes, that notion does seem odd. I thought so myself. I did some research. Turns out she at least was (and as far as I know, still is) a defendant in a civil case brought by the SEC. The gravamen of the civil case? Illegal insider trading.

[freekitty]

Martha is not among the "little people"; therefore she is not guilty. That's the way Martha thinks.

[Mike4Freedom]

It does seem odd that the government did not have enough evidence to make the charges of insider trading stick, but they were able to convict her of lying about insider trading.

Unfortunately it is not odd at all. Under today's nonsense laws you can be convicted of conspiracy to do something that you did not do. It was the founder's expectation that the jurors would laugh such stuff out of court, but our public school educated jurors go along with the insanity.

[Howlin]

Right!

This was her FIRST statement:

Dear Friends:

I am obviously distressed by the jury's verdict but I continue to take comfort in knowing that I have done nothing wrong and that I have the enduring support of my family and friends.

I will appeal the verdict and continue to fight to clear my name. I believe in the fairness of the judicial system and remain confident that I will ultimately prevail.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate all the words of encouragement I have received from thousands of supporters. It is your continued support that will keep me going until I am completely exonerated.

Sincerely,

Martha Stewart

[Paulie]

"Do you know what an appeal is? (hint: It is NOT a second shot just because you didn't like the verdict)."

I thought that's exactly what it was!!

[Uncle Hal]

I would guess Martha is going to be sued by the stockholders of her company for being irresponsible in letting her company go in the tank. There is probably some kind of morals clause in her contract with the company. It is hard to see her company coming back from this but, who knows? Stranger things have happened.

[11th Earl of Mar]

her calling a summit today to formulate strategy ... Didn't Michael Jackson do the same thing?

Didn't Michael rent a tent and give a concert for all of his friends?

I would pay money for that concert if Martha sings. [no pun intended]

[Hildy]

I don't know...I think she's suffered enough.

[Howlin]

What do you mean suffered? Suffered how?

[Terry Mross]

From the beginning I said "I can't stand her but anyone would have done the same thing." And I wrote her an email saying that. I meant anyone would have sold the stock if they knew it was going to tank. I can't believe "those in the know" don't pass info along to friends, relatives and policticians when a stock is about to tank. But after the way she acted, I now think she should do time. If she would have come clean in the beginning and said, "Hell, yeah, I sold it. Wouldn't you?" She'd have gotten a small fine and a slap on the wrist. But she didn't just sell it. She lied about it and forged documents. And all of this for $50,000 out of her millions. And this woman thinks she didn't do anything wrong because of who she is. She reminds me of Leona Helmsley. It's the little people who pay taxes, play by the rules and do time when caught breaking those rules.

[11th Earl of Mar]

It does seem odd that the government did not have enough evidence to make the charges of insider trading stick, but they were able to convict her of lying about insider trading.

So if the Enron/WorldCom people could only be convicted of shredding papers, eliminating evidence, burning journals and deleting emails, you would just let them go?

[11th Earl of Mar]

I think she's suffered enough.

According to what state or federal law?

There is a manditory minumum sentence in this case just to keep liberal judges from "feeling the criminals have suffered enough" and letting them walk.

[Guenevere]

#42...I wouldn't wish prison on anyone, Hildy, but how do you know this is her first time doing these 'dirty little deeds'..?

Something tells me this is simply her way .....throughout life.
Whatever it takes seems to be her motto.

Goodness gracious, yesterday I watched a Martha Stewart profile....and even her brother had 'not too nice' things to say about his own sister.

She sounds like a manipulator extraordinaire....fully wanting control of all around her no matter who gets hurt.

[Mike Darancette]

She might have talked her way into a harsher sentence.

She'll get her chance at the sentencing hearing - this ought to be good.

[Carolinamom]

CNN is doing a biography of MS right now.